DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levy (US20110232586).
Regarding claim 4, Levy discloses a coating gun for powder coating a workpiece, the coating gun comprising:
a body (112);
a grip (110) that engages said body so as to define a hand grip (Figure 17);
a trigger mechanism (140, 158, 168) having a trigger element (140) and an elastic element (158) and a lock channel (168), the trigger element being pressable and releasable so as to allow for a respective passage of the powder coating and a blocking of the powder coating (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Paragraph 55, The trigger is capable of being pressed and released, to allow passage of a powder material with which the device is used) the elastic element (158) being compressed when the trigger element is pressed (Figure 19) and extends when the trigger element is released (Figure 18), the lock channel locking said grip to said body (the channel receives the extractor, and provides a locked connection between the grip and body through the trigger, channel and extractor); and
an extractor (166) engaging said lock channel so as to allow said grip to engage said body (The structure provides for the claimed function, Figure 19, the lock channel provides a connection to the body through the lock channel and the trigger)
Regarding claim 5, Levy discloses the coating gun of claim 4, wherein said elastic element (158) is a spring (Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 6, Levy discloses the coating gun of claim 4, wherein the trigger element (140) is positioned at a location where said grip (110) joins to said body (112) (Figure 19) and adapted to reduce a force on a wrist of a user of the coating gun (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight: The structure provides for a reduced forced, relative to a trigger with a wider angle of protrusion from the body).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the prior art fails to put forth the channel “for locking the grip to the body,” the limitation is a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight. The element only need to be capable of performing the claimed function. The channel forms a connection between the grip, and body through the extractor and channel. As such, the elements are locked to one another through the channel.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a functional interdependence only when engagement occurs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations only specify engagement, as opposed to functional interdependence. The limitation “to enable” is a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight. The structure provides for engagement as the extractor forms a connection between the grip, and body through the extractor and channel
As to Applicant’s arguments drawn to repurposing of the latch-trigger mechanism, the arguments are moot, as Examiner does not propose repurposing of the latch or trigger.
As to Applicant’s position that the spring of Levy does not read on that put forth in the claims, the spring of Levy is biased and compressed in a manner that provides for locking and unlocking of the trigger, which are the mechanical limitations put forth by the claims.
As to Applicant’s position that the trigger is not at the junction between the grip and body, figure 19 shows the trigger extending across the junction.
As to Applicant’s position regarding ergonomic, benefit, the limitation is a broad intended use recitation. The limitation requires no specific disclosure of the prior art as to ergonomic comfort. The limitation requires that the configuration be capable of providing ergonomic comfort. The angle of the trigger would be more comfortable for a user, relative to a trigger with a much wider angle, requiring more hand effort.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752