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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, and 13-14 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits in response to the amendment filed 11/13/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5586695 to Labus et al in view of US 3318493 to Belpedio in view of US 4444327 to Hedgewick in view of US 2008/0245380 to Ecker.
As per claim 1, Labus discloses a sprayer assembly comprising:
a canister (12) and a lid (14a, 37, 48) that releasably connects to the canister (Col. 3, ¶ 2);
the lid (14a, 37, 48) comprising an internal cavity (Fig. 3);
a coupling mechanism (17, 18) that projects and is configured to selectively engage the canister;
a fluid channel (23) in fluid communication with the internal cavity (Fig. 3) and attachable to a pressurized air source (100), such that the fluid channel is configured to direct pressurized air to the canister (Fig. 3);
a nozzle assembly (31, 26, 30) comprising a fluid uptake tube (31), which extends into the internal cavity (Fig. 3), a nozzle valve (30), and nozzle head (26) configured to, when depressed, open the nozzle valve and disperse fluid drawn through the fluid update tube (Col. 3, Ln. 58-67); and
Labus does not disclose: a handle coupled to the lid and gripable by an operator to hold the sprayer-head assembly; a trigger engaging the nozzle head, such that the trigger, when actuated, operates the nozzle assembly; and, the internal cavity configured to receive a portion of the canister; the coupling mechanism projects inwardly towards the internal cavity and comprises an inwardly projecting peg that engages the canister.
In regards to the limitations drawn to a handle and trigger, Belpedio teaches a sprayer assembly comprising: a lid (21); a nozzle assembly (22, 23); a handle (11) coupled to the lid and gripable by an operator to hold the sprayer assembly (Fig. 1-2); and a trigger (25) engaging the nozzle head (Fig. 5), such that the trigger, when actuated, operates the nozzle assembly (Col. 3, Ln. 15-21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed modify Labus combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Belpedio for reasons including to provide a means to hold the sprayer assembly farther from an operator.
In regards to the limitations drawn to the internal cavity receiving a portion of the canister and a peg engaging the canister, Labus further discloses the coupling mechanism comprising a threaded connection. Hedgewick teaches a closure (16) for a canister (10), wherein the closure comprises an internal cavity configured to receive a portion of the canister (Fig. 1-2), and the closure having pegs (36) projecting inwardly towards the internal cavity and each peg engaging a path of the canister (Col. 4, ¶ 3), wherein the path comprises a mouth (12) to receive the peg, a first recess (28)and a second recess (26), wherein the first recess is, as compared to the second recess, closer to the mouth (Fig. 1-2); and wherein the path comprises a ramp interface (30) extending between the first recess and the second recess (Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the threaded connection of the Labus-Belpedio combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Hedgewick since doing so would be an obvious substitution of one known connection mechanism for another known connection mechanism, with the expected results that the substituted connection mechanism would function to connect the closure and canister.
The Labus-Belpedio-Hedgewick combination does not disclose the path being a channel. Ecker teaches a coupling mechanism between a cap (1000) and a canister (1200), wherein the mechanism comprises pegs (1071) projecting towards an internal cavity of the cap (Fig. 10) and each peg engaging a channel (1210) of the canister, wherein the channel is bounded on a lower end by a cap stabilizing ring (1259). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Labus-Hedgewick combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Ecker for reasons including to provide a lower bound for stabilizing the lid.
As per claim 3, Hedgewick further discloses the coupling mechanism comprises two or more inwardly projecting pegs (Fig. 1-2).
As per claim 4, Hedgewick further discloses each inwardly projecting peg engages a path of the canister (Fig. 1-2).
As per claim 7, Hedgewick further discloses an edge extends into the path at a transition to the second recess (Fig. 1-2).
As per claim 8, Labus further discloses the lid comprises an annular seal (19) that engages an upper rim of the container of fluid (Fig. 3).
As per claim 9, Labus further discloses a pressure regulator affixed in the fluid channel (Col. 3, ln. 43-46).
As per claim 10, Labus further discloses a check valve affixed in the fluid channel (Col. 3, Ln. 56-57).
As per claim 11, Labus further discloses the lid comprises an annular shelf that supports an annular flange of the nozzle assembly (Fig. 3).
As per claim 13, Hedgewick further discloses the edge at least partially impedes movement of the peg through the channel (Col. 5, ¶ 5; Fig. 2).
As per claim 14, Hedgewick further discloses engagement of the peg across the edge during a closing operation (Col. 4, ¶ 3). Hedgewick does not explicitly disclose that engagement producing audible feedback. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Labus-Belpedio-Hedgewick-Ecker combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of the claimed functionality.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 issued in the non-final rejection dated 08/13/25, the amendment filed 11/13/25 appropriately addresses all and the rejections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, while the remarks filed 11/13/25 have been considered they are moot because they do not apply to the grounds of rejection contained in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754