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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 22nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 27th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“chemical” should be added before “fluid components” in ln. 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. 2 and claim 16, ln. 2.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the material overpressure situation" in ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a material overpressure situation” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the internal pressure" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an internal pressure” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
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, 9-10, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hurray discloses a plural component applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1), comprising:
a nozzle (13, Figs. 1-7) configured to be 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 fluid 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 the 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 disclose at least one temperature sensor attached to the gun body, the at least one temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a respective chemical fluid component of the plurality of chemical fluid components in the manifold.
Gantenbein teaches at least one temperature sensor (40, Fig. 3) attached to the gun body (external surface of gun 10, shown in Fig. 3), the at least one temperature sensor (40, Fig. 3) configured to measure a temperature of a respective chemical fluid component of the plurality of chemical fluid components in the manifold (40 is a temperature sensor positioned on the nozzle or at least one hose that contains a temperature sensitive colorant which changes from a first to a second temperature with variations in temperature of the dispensed chemicals, annotated in Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0021, 0041-0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hurray 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 in Gantenbein’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, to have the motivation of allowing the user to visually see if the chemicals are dispensed at the proper temperature (Gantenbein, Paragraph 0041).
With respect to claim 2, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, 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); and
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).
With respect to claim 9, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Gantenbein further teaches at least one optical indicator (40 can include a temperature sensitive tape that changes color depending on temperature of dispensed chemicals, Paragraph 0042), wherein the at least one optical indicator is configured to optically transmit information related to at least one temperature condition measured by the at least one temperature sensor (temperature sensitive tape indicates to user the temperature of the dispensed chemicals through color change, Paragraphs 0021, 0043).
Regarding claim 10, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Hurray discloses 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).
In regards to claim 20, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 9. Gantenbein further teaches the at least one optical indicator (Paragraph 0042) is further configured to optically transmit information related to battery power, pressure conditions, or combinations thereof (tape is a pressure sensitive tape being temperature sensitive changing from a first color to a second color upon a temperature change within said nozzle, Claim 3).
With respect to claim 23, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Hurray further discloses the manifold (16, 22, 23, Fig. 1) further comprises a dividing wall (annotated in Fig. 1) on a forward external surface of the manifold (16, 22, 23, shown in Fig. 1), the dividing wall (annotated in Fig. 1) configured to segregate each of the plurality of fluid components (“A” and “B” components, Fig. 1, Col. 9, Ln. 37-41) before contact with a static agitator (59, Fig. 5) of the static mixer (63, Fig. 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 2. However, Hurray and Gantenbein do not teach the manifold is configured to snap fit into the handle and rear hood.
Poppe teaches 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of providing 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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 2. However, Hurray and Gantenbein 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of promoting simple installation and removal of components within the spray gun (Alexander, Paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 14, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. Hurray discloses 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 Gantenbein do not teach a finger shelf. Alexander teaches a finger shelf (50, Fig. 2).
Hurray, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of helping to balance the applicator in the operator’s hand (Alexander, Paragraph 0024).
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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 6. 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 Gantenbein 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of allowing individual spray paths to be controlled independently of one another (Fritz, Paragraph 0050).
However, Hurray, Gantenbein, 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein and Fritz, to have the motivation of allowing 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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Gantenbein 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of minimizing 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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Gantenbein 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of allowing 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 Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 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 Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Gantenbein 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, Gantenbein, 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 Gantenbein, to have the motivation of providing information to the user about various functions of the applicator (Kundem, Paragraph 0031).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Donaldson (US 20190022678 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Gantenbein do not teach the at least one temperature sensor is comprised in an internal control unit, and wherein the at least one temperature sensor is attached to the gun body based on the internal control unit being attached to a top external surface of the manifold.
Donaldson teaches the at least one temperature sensor (102, Fig. 1) is comprised in an internal control unit (36, Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one temperature sensor (102, Fig. 1) is attached to the gun body based on the internal control unit (36, Fig. 1) being attached to a top external surface of the manifold (temperature sensors 102 can be within the gun, attached to hose couplings or fittings for the two hoses (as well as in or around hoses), or within a fluid manifold structure near the gun that has independent inlet and outlet fluid passages for the two materials, and connect to control system 36 through wired means, Paragraph 0029).
Hurray, Gantenbein, and Donaldson 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 and the internal control unit as taught by Donaldson’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Gantenbein, to have the motivation of providing additional control over the temperatures of the fluids independently to achieve desired temperatures (Donaldson, Paragraph 0029).
With respect to claim 17, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein and Donaldson, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 16. Gantenbein further teaches the at least one temperature sensor (40, Fig. 3) is configured to measure the temperature of at the respective chemical fluid component in the manifold based on the top external surface of the manifold comprising a port opening to a chamber corresponding to the respective chemical fluid component (40 is a temperature sensor positioned on the nozzle or at least one hose that contains a temperature sensitive colorant which changes from a first to a second temperature with variations in temperature of the dispensed chemicals, Paragraphs 0021, 0041-0043).
Regarding claim 18, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein and Donaldson, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 16. Donaldson further teaches the internal control unit (36, Fig. 1) comprises:
memory (38, Fig. 1) configured to store data received from the at least one temperature sensor (one or more programs are stored in the memory 38 suitable for sensing system 10 conditions via the sensors, and sensors 102 communicate data to control system 36, Paragraphs 0020, 0029); and
an input/output (I/O) port (38, Fig. 1) configured to interface with an external computer system to output stored data from the memory to the external computer system (Paragraph 0020).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Donaldson (US 20190022678 A1) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Hempy et al. (US Patent 11,247,891).
Regarding claim 19, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein and Donaldson, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 16. However. Hurray, Gantenbein, and Donaldson do not teach the internal control unit further comprises an accelerometer and a battery, the accelerometer configured to reduce drain of the battery when the applicator is not in use by powering down the applicator based on a predetermined passage of time with no detected movement by the accelerometer.
Hempy teaches the internal control unit (1204, Fig. 12) further comprises an accelerometer (1210, 1210 can include an accelerometer that senses movement to wake up other components, Fig. 12, Col. 25, Ln. 19-31, Col. 25, Ln. 59 to Col. 26, Ln. 5), and a battery (1212, Fig. 12), the accelerometer (1210, Fig. 12) configured to reduce drain of the battery when the applicator is not in use by powering down the applicator based on a predetermined passage of time with no detected movement by the accelerometer (1210 can include an accelerometer that senses movement to wake up other components to save battery, Col. 25, Ln. 19-31, Col. 25, Ln. 59 to Col. 26, Ln. 5).
Hurray, Gantenbein, Donaldson, and Hempy are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the accelerometer and the battery as taught by Hempy’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Gantenbein and Donaldson, to have the motivation to conserve battery use and prevent accidental activation (Hempy, Col. 1, Ln. 41-48, Col. 25, Ln. 19-31, Col. 25, Ln. 59 to Col. 26, Ln. 5).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776) in view of Gantenbein et al. (US 20140034756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1).
In regards to claim 21, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray does not 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, Gantenbein, 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, as modified by Gantenbein, to have the motivation of providing a pressure relief failsafe in the applicator (Pomeroy, Paragraph 0043).
With respect to claim 22, Hurray, as modified by Gantenbein, discloses the plural component applicator of claim 1. However, Hurray and Gantenbein do not teach the material overpressure situation occurs when the internal pressure of the manifold reaches a pressure of at least 500 pounds per square inch.
Pomeroy teaches the material overpressure situation occurs when the internal pressure of the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) reaches a pressure of at least 500 pounds per square inch (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, and safety pressure can occur at more than 180 psi, Paragraph 0043).
Hurray, Gantenbein, 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 as taught in Pomeroy’s applicator, to Hurray’s applicator, as modified by Gantenbein, to have the motivation of providing a pressure relief failsafe in the applicator (Pomeroy, Paragraph 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hurray and Gantenbein do not teach the at least one temperature sensor attached to the gun body, see Remarks, pg. 8-9, Gantenbein does teach this feature. The gun body in Gantenbein is considered to be the external surface of gun 10 as shown in Fig. 3, and 40 is attached to the external surface of gun 10 in Fig. 3.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hurray and Gantenbein do not teach the at least one temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a respective chemical fluid component of the plurality of chemical fluid components in the manifold, Gantenbein does teach this feature. A manifold is interpreted as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Gantenbein teaches this structure as annotated in Fig. 3 above. Gantenbein states that 40 is a temperature sensor positioned on the nozzle or at least one hose that contains a temperature sensitive colorant which changes from a first to a second temperature with variations in temperature of the dispensed chemicals in Paragraphs 0021, 0041-0043, so 40 is capable to measuring a temperature of the nozzle or at least one hose within the annotated manifold and changing the color based on variation of the temperature.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Gantenbein provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to the combine the temperature sensor to Hurray because doing so allows the user to visually see if the chemicals are dispensed at the proper temperature (Gantenbein, Paragraph 0041).
In response to applicant’s argument that Hurray and Poppe do not teach the manifold is configured to snap fit into the handle and rear hood, Poppe does teach this feature. A manifold is interpreted as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Cap 6 in Poppe is a pipe fitting structure that includes at least one holder 7 for inserting at least one dispensing tip 8, and cap 6 is attached to the handle and the protruded rear body of the foam gun through a snap-in connection (Paragraph 0020).
Conclusion
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
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights