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 .
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) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers et al (US 20150017327).
Regarding claim 1, Myers discloses a spray system (Figure 1) for mixing multi-part liquids (The liquid adhesive and activator of Paragraph 0007) and spraying a mixed liquid product (The mixed liquid from the liquid adhesive and activator of Paragraph 0007) onto a spray target (Figure 1; 68), the spray system comprising:
a first spray nozzle (Figure 1; 14) for dispensing a first constituent liquid part (The liquid adhesive, Paragraph 0041) of the mixed liquid product in a first spray pattern (Figure 5; 60), the first spray nozzle being actuatable between an on position (The on position of Figure 1; 14, Paragraph 0067) in which the first constituent part is being dispensed in the first spray pattern and an off position (The off position of Figure 1; 14, Paragraph 0067) in which the first constituent part is not being dispensed; and
a second spray nozzle (Figure 1; 16) for dispensing a second constituent liquid part (The liquid activator, Paragraph 0041)of the mixed liquid product in a second spray pattern, the second spray nozzle being actuatable between an on position (The on position of Figure 1; 16, Paragraph 0067) in which the second constituent part is being dispensed in the second spray pattern and an off position (The off position of Figure 1; 16, Paragraph 0067) in which the second constituent part is not being dispensed;
wherein the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle are oriented relative to each other and the spray target such that when the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle are in their respective on position the first spray pattern and the second spray pattern impinge on each other while airborne and prior to reaching the spray target (Functional Language, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses wherein the first spray pattern has a flat, fan-shaped configuration and the second spray pattern has a flat, fan-shaped configuration (Both the first and second spray patterns are each a flat, fan shaped configuration as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses wherein the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle are oriented relative to each other such that the first spray pattern of the first constituent part impinges on the second spray pattern of the second constituent part at a location (The location where the first and second spray patterns intersect) wherein the first spray pattern and the second spray pattern have substantially equal widths (The width of Figure 5; 66. Functional Language, Figure 5 shows 60 and 62 have substantially the same shape, so that the widths of the 60 and 62 at their point of intersection is substantially equal. Also, Figure 5 shows 60 and 62 wholly being combined into 64, so that their respective widths are the same because if not 64 would have a border of 60 or 62, Paragraph 0051)
Regarding claim 7, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses a first liquid supply (The supply of liquid adhesive by Figure 5; 26) of the first constituent part in fluid communication with the first spray nozzle and a second liquid supply (The supply of liquid activator by Figure 5; 28) of the second constituent part in fluid communication with the second spray nozzle.
Regarding claim 8, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses wherein the first and second spray nozzles are oriented relative to each other to define an intersection angle (The intersection angle of Figure 4; 14 and 16) between the first spray pattern and the second spray pattern, the intersection angle being selected based on a first pressure of the first supply (The pressure of the first supply) and a second pressure of a second supply (The pressure of the second supply) of the second constituent part to the second spray nozzle (Functional Language, the intersection angle can be selected based on the first and second pressure. The angle is selected so that the spray patterns intersect which is a function of pressure. When the spray patterns are converging, but almost parallel, the respective pressures need to be large because the spray patterns will travel far before intersecting. When the spray patterns are converging, but almost perpendicular, the respective pressures can be small because the spray patterns do not need to travel far before intersecting. Also, Paragraph 0011 states the amount of liquid adhesive and activator are a function of respective pressure and that angling of the first and second nozzles causes the streams to intersect during spraying which occurs due to the first and second pressure)
Regarding claim 9, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses wherein the intersection angle is about 30 degrees and about 45 degrees (The intersection angle looks about 30 to 45 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers further discloses wherein one of the first and second constituent parts is a catalyst (The activator is a catalyst).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Schrader et al (US 20190321844).
Regarding claim 2, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers does not disclose a spray controller in communication with the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle, the spray controller configured to modulate movement of the first spray nozzle between the on and the off positions to produce a first application rate and configured to modulate movement of the second spray nozzle between the on and off positions to produce a second application rate.
However, Schrader teaches a spray controller (The controller of Paragraph 0010) in communication with a first spray nozzle (A first instance of Figure 1; 34) and a second spray nozzle (A second instance of Figure 1; 34), the spray controller configured to modulate movement of the first spray nozzle between on and off positions (Paragraph 0043) to produce a first application rate (The first application rate of the first nozzle) and configured to modulate movement of the second spray nozzle between on and off positions (Paragraph 0043) to produce a second application rate (The first application rate of the second nozzle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Myers to include a spray controller in communication with the first spray nozzle and the second spray nozzle, the spray controller configured to modulate movement of the first spray nozzle between the on and the off positions to produce a first application rate and configured to modulate movement of the second spray nozzle between the on and off positions to produce a second application rate as taught by and suggested by Schrader in order to automatically control the flow rate and other flow characteristics (Paragraph 0006, 0010, 0049, The modification adds a spray controller which electrically actuates and pulses the first and second nozzles at different rates).
Regarding claim 3, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers does not disclose wherein the spray controller is configured to modulate the first and second spray nozzles such that the first application rate is different than the second application rate.
However, Schrader teaches wherein the spray controller is configured to modulate the first and second spray nozzles such that the first application rate is different than the second application rate (Paragraph 0006, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Myers wherein the spray controller is configured to modulate the first and second spray nozzles such that the first application rate is different than the second application rate as taught by and suggested by Schrader in order to automatically control the flow rate and other flow characteristics (Paragraph 0006, 0010, 0049, This is the same modification as claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Myers discloses the invention as claimed.
Myers does not disclose wherein the first and second spray nozzles are electrically actuated.
However, Schrader teaches wherein the first and second spray nozzles are electrically actuated (Paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Myers wherein the first and second spray nozzles are electrically actuated as taught by and suggested by Schrader in order to automatically control the flow rate and other flow characteristics (Paragraph 0006, 0010, 0049, This is the same modification as claim 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741