DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2nd, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an internal control unit in claim 15, ln. 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. It will be interpreted that the internal control unit is a sensor, a printed circuit assembly, a memory, an accelerometer, or an optical indicator, as described in Pg. 3-4 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a static mixer” in ln. 10. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the static mixer previously recited in the claim or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the static mixer is the static mixer previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hurray discloses a plural component applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1), comprising:
a nozzle (13, Figs. 1-7) attached to a gun body (12, shown in Figs. 1-2), the gun body (12, Figs. 1-2) comprises a manifold (interpreting as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 16, 22, 23, hose openings 22 and 23 located on longitudinally extending portion 16 attach to “A” and “B” hoses, Fig. 1, Col. 9, Ln. 37-41) configured to receive a plurality of chemical fluid components (“A” and “B” components, Col. 5, Ln. 55-61) through a plurality of hoses (not explicitly shown but hose openings 22 and 23 attach to “A” and “B” hoses containing “A” and “B” components, Fig. 1, Col. 9, Ln. 37-41) based on operation of a trigger assembly (20, when operator actuates trigger 20, hose openings 22 and 23 attach to “A” and “B” hoses through quick connect couplings or retaining mechanisms, and the position of the hose openings allow hoses to drape over the operator’s forearm, Figs. 1-4, Col. 9, Ln. 32-58), wherein the manifold (16, 22, 23, Fig. 1) is configured to separately deliver the plurality of chemical components (“A” and “B” components, Fig. 1, Col. 9, Ln. 37-41) to a static mixer (63, “A” and “B” hoses containing “A” and “B” components connects through hose openings 22 and 23 to inlet chamber 60 which introduces “A” and “B” components to static mixer 63, shown in Figs. 1, 3, 7, 15, Col. 12, Ln. 21-26) within the nozzle (13, not explicitly shown but static mixer 63 is placed at the end of semi-circular portion 96 which is within nozzle 13, Figs. 7, 15) based on operation of the trigger assembly (20, movement of components within trigger 20 permits metering of “A” and “B” liquid components, Figs. 1-4, Col. 11, Ln. 13-29),
wherein the plurality of chemical fluid components (“A” and “B” components, Col. 5, Ln. 55-61) remain separate from one another when passing through the manifold (16, 22, 23, hose openings 22 and 23 attach to “A” and “B” hoses which are shown to be separate and parallel from each other, and “A” component is located within dispensing passage 25 and “B” component is located within dispensing passage 26, which are shown to be parallel to each other, and are in communication with “A” and “B” hoses, shown in Figs. 1, 4, Col. 9, Ln. 59-67), and
wherein the plurality of chemical fluid components (“A” and “B” components, Col. 5, Ln. 55-61) mix together downstream of the manifold in a static mixer (interpreting as fluid components only mixing together in the static mixer, 63, “A” and “B” components remain unmixed until reaching the static mixer and static mixer 63 serves to mix the components, Figs. 7, 15, Col. 6, Ln. 31-53, Col. 12, Ln. 21-26).
However, Hurray does not explicitly disclose the manifold is configured to sacrificially and deterministically burst based on a material overpressure situation and the trigger assembly is not configured to burst if the manifold bursts. Pomeroy teaches an applicator (10, Figs. 1A-2) comprising the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) is configured to sacrificially and deterministically burst based on a material overpressure situation (safety rupture bore 100 has a rupturable portion 212 that ruptures when the pressure in the gas storage chamber 118 exceeds a second safety pressure greater than the first safety pressure, Paragraph 0043) and the trigger assembly (74, Fig. 1A) is not configured to burst if the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) bursts (portion 212 ruptures to permit pressurized gas from the gas storage chamber 118 to be released to the atmosphere to prevent unsafe failure of the gas cylinder assembly 22, which prevents other components of the driver 10 from rupturing or failing, such as the trigger 74, Paragraph 0043).
Hurray and Pomeroy are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the manifold and trigger as taught in Pomeroy’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, to have the manifold is configured to sacrificially and deterministically burst based on a material overpressure situation and the trigger assembly is not configured to burst if the manifold bursts. Doing so provides a pressure relief failsafe in the applicator (Pomeroy, Paragraph 0043).
With respect to claim 2, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Hurray discloses the gun body (12, Figs. 1-2) comprises a rear hood (17, Figs. 1-4) and handle (18, Figs. 1-2).
In regards to claim 6, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Hurray discloses the trigger assembly (20, Figs. 1-4) comprises a cam (115, annular collar surface 115 is chamfered to produce a cam pivot and camming surface for crossbar line contact 112, Figs. 14A-B, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42, Col. 18, Ln. 50-58) configured to rotate against a rear external surface of the manifold (curved surface of longitudinally extending portion 16, cam pivot provides rotational movement of the trigger lever 44 about the trigger pivot 45, shown in Figs. 14A-B, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42, Col. 18, Ln. 50-58).
Regarding claim 7, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 6. Hurray discloses the trigger assembly (20, Figs. 1-4) comprises a trigger configured to increase a lever moment based on actuation of the trigger (interpreting moment as tendency or measure of tendency to produce motion especially about a point or axis, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, movement of the trigger 20 by the operator causes trigger pivot 45 to pivot and opens the trigger lever 44 and permits rotational movement of the trigger lever 44 about the trigger pivot 45, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42, Col. 7, Ln. 41-58, Col. 11, Ln. 14-30).
Regarding claim 10, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1, further comprising a trigger lock mechanism (120, Figs. 1-3) configured to prevent accidental actuation and dispensing (lock tab 120 can be placed in a locked position to render the gun inoperable, Col. 18, Ln. 59 to Col. 19, Ln. 19).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Poppe (US 20160199862 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 2. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach the manifold is configured to snap fit into the handle and rear hood. Poppe teaches a plural component applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the manifold (6, Figs. 2-4, 6) is configured to snap fit into the handle (2, shown in Figs. 2-4, 6, Paragraphs 0020-0021) and rear hood (protruded rear body of the foam gun, protruded rear body of the foam gun is attached to handle 2, shown in Figs. 1-3).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Poppe are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the manifold and handle as taught by Poppe’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the manifold is configured to snap fit into the handle and rear hood. Doing so provides a secure connection between the manifold and the handle and allows the manifold to be easily removable (Poppe, Paragraphs 0020-0021).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 20060202060 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 2. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach the rear hood is configured to snap fit into the handle. Alexander teaches an applicator (12, Fig. 2) comprising the rear hood (24, ears 24 are attached to the covering of the spray gun 12 at the back, shown in Figs. 2-3) is configured to snap fit into the handle (10’, the bosses 28 of ears 24 snap into wells 32 of the spray gun handle 10’, shown in Fig. 3, Paragraph 0027).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Alexander are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the rear hood and the handle as taught by Alexander’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the rear hood is configured to snap fit into the handle. Doing so promotes simple installation and removal of components within the spray gun (Alexander, Paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 14, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1, further comprising a hand grip (interpreting as a grasping with the hand, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, curved portion of handle 18, operator grasps dispensing gun 10 about handle 18, shown in Figs. 1-3, Col. 9, Ln. 43-48) and surface texturing (ridged surface on handle 18, shown in Figs. 1-3). However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach a finger shelf. Alexander teaches an applicator (12, Fig. 2) comprising a finger shelf (50, Fig. 2).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Alexander are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the finger shelf as taught by Alexander’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the applicator further comprising a hand grip, a finger shelf, and surface texturing. Doing so helps balance the applicator in the operator’s hand (Alexander, Paragraph 0024).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach at least one temperature sensor. Gantenbein teaches an applicator (10, Fig. 2) comprising at least one temperature sensor (40, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0021, 0043).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Gantenbein are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the at least one temperature sensor as taught by Gantenbein’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have at least one temperature sensor. Doing so allows the user to visually see if the chemicals are dispensed at the proper temperature (Gantenbein, Paragraph 0041).
With respect to claim 9, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach at least one optical indicator, wherein the at least one optical indicator is configured to optically transmit information related to battery power, trigger actuation, temperature conditions, pressure conditions, or combinations thereof. Gantenbein teaches an applicator (10, Fig. 2) comprising at least one optical indicator (40, Fig. 3), wherein the at least one optical indicator is configured to optically transmit information related to battery power, trigger actuation, temperature conditions, pressure conditions, or combinations thereof (temperature sensor 40 indicates to user the temperature of the dispensed chemicals through color change, Paragraphs 0021, 0043).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Gantenbein are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the at least one optical indicator as taught by Gantenbein’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have at least one optical indicator, wherein the at least one optical indicator is configured to optically transmit information related to battery power, trigger actuation, temperature conditions, pressure conditions, or combinations thereof. Doing so allows the user to visually see if the chemicals are dispensed at the proper temperature (Gantenbein, Paragraph 0041).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Fritz et al. (US 20200246814 A1) and Kaneko et al. (US 20010040192 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 7. Hurray discloses the applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1) further comprising a valve (35, Fig. 4) and a spring (50, Figs. 3-4), the lever moment is configured to counteract an increasing force of the spring (50, Figs. 3-4) based on actuation of the trigger (20, Figs. 1-4) to thereby operate the valve (35, trigger 20 moves the metering rod 28, which interacts with rotational movement of the trigger lever 44 about the trigger pivot 45, against the bias of the spring 50 to discharge liquid components through the valve seats 35, Figs. 4, 14A-B, Col. 5, Ln. 2-11, Claim 1).
However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach a plurality of needle valves as claimed. Fritz teaches a plural component applicator (entire structure, Figs. 1A-1B) comprising a plurality of needle valves (6, 7, 8, 9, Figs. 1A-1B).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Fritz are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the plurality of needle valves as taught by Fritz’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the applicator comprising a plurality of needle valves. Hurray’s applicator would be modified to include the plurality of needle valves as taught in Fritz to have the applicator further comprising a plurality of needle valves. Doing so allows individual spray paths to be controlled independently of one another (Fritz, Paragraph 0050).
However, Hurray, Pomeroy, and Fritz do not teach a plurality of springs as claimed. Kaneko teaches an applicator (1, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of springs (29, 41, Fig. 1).
Hurray, Pomeroy, Fritz, and Kaneko are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plural component applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the plurality of springs as taught by Kaneko’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy and Fritz, to have the applicator comprising a plurality of needle valves and springs, wherein the lever moment is configured to counteract an increasing force of the springs based on actuation of the trigger to thereby operate the needle valves. Hurray’s applicator would be modified to include the plurality of springs as taught by Kaneko to have the applicator comprising a plurality of springs. Doing so allows the user to better control the spray from the applicator (Kaneko, Paragraph 0019).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wheeler (US Patent 5,395,054).
With respect to claim 11, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach the hoses are configured to enter the manifold through the handle. Wheeler teaches a plural component applicator (10, Fig. 1) comprising the hoses (17, 18, Fig. 1) are configured to enter through the handle (13, shown in Fig. 1).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Wheeler are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the hoses as taught by Wheeler’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the hoses are configured to enter the manifold through the handle. Doing so minimizes operator fatigue (Wheeler, Col. 1, Ln. 20-23).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luttermoller (US Patent 4,713,257).
Regarding claim 13, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach the applicator comprises an integral hook. Luttermoller teaches a plural component applicator (1, Fig. 1) comprises an integral hook (5, Fig. 1).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Luttermoller are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plural component applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the integral hook as taught by Luttermoller’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have the applicator comprises an integral hook. Doing so allows the user to hang the applicator (Luttermoller, Col. 7, Ln. 24-26).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kundem et al. (US 20210187526 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hurray, as modified by Pomeroy, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Pomeroy do not teach the applicator comprising an internal control unit housed within the gun body configured to reduce a battery drain when the applicator is not in use and to store performance information. Kundem teaches an applicator (100, Fig. 1A) comprising an internal control unit (112, 114, Fig. 1A, Paragraph 0037) housed within the gun body (109, shown in Fig. 1A) configured to reduce a battery drain when the applicator is not in use and to store performance information (electronics assembly 112 can be recharged when not in use, display 114 of electronics assembly 112 allows user to input various mechanisms and display different information of characteristics of the spraying system 100, Paragraphs 0037, 0040, 0107).
Hurray, Pomeroy, and Kundem are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the internal control unit as taught by Kundem’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Pomeroy, to have an internal control unit housed within the gun body configured to reduce a battery drain when the applicator is not in use and to store performance information. Doing so provides information to the user about various functions of the applicator (Kundem, Paragraph 0031).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 /ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752