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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Launder.
Launder (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; page 1, col. 1, lines 12-15, 26-35; col. 2, lines 7-8, 13-15, 20-24, 43-51) disclose a spray fan apparatus including a fan assembly (18), a motor (16) for driving the fan blades, a spray head including nozzles (24) to spray the liquid, and a pump (page 1, col. 1, lines 13-15) to deliver the liquid, with adjustment devices (valves 31, 32) for adjusting the size and shape of the channel for the liquid flow therethrough, the valves being infinitely adjustable to provide myriad of channel shapes with the change of the adjustment hole shape, which will allow for a wide range of flowrates and pressures of the liquid being supplied to the spray head, to satisfy any desired droplet size and volume (claims 1 and 16). With regard to adjustment of the flowrate of liquid by changing the cross-section of the adjustment hole thereby first decreasing and then increasing the flowrate once, twice, or multiple times, the valves provide the user the capability to adjust the liquid flowrate or pressure, as desired (claims 2, 17, and 19). As such, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to manipulate the valves of the device as desired to meet the process parameters as set forth by each of instant claims 3-5, 7-9, 18, and 20, as well as rendering the shape of the adjustment hole, as recited by instant claims 13 and 14, obvious. It would have also been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application to substitute a well known electric motor for the fuel driven fan motor of the reference, since such would be more user friendly with regard to the lack of exhaust from an electric motor. Further, the typical plumbing couplings for placement of the valves within the liquid flow line provide for the structures as set forth by instant claims 10 and 12. The output pressure of the pump is a process parameter and therefore the limitation of instant claim 11 would be dictated by the speed at which the pump were running and the position of the valves within the flow lines. Lastly, it is noted that providing a relief valve upstream of a pump (claim 15) is notoriously well known within the pumping field as means to avoid a vapor lock of the pump, or to avoid overpressurizing the inlet to the pump, which could damage the pump during startup.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks section of the amendment, filed July 16, 2026, with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026, directed to claims 1-5, and 7-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to applicant’s arguments that the Launder valves do not render the instant claims obvious by providing means to decrease and then increase the flowrate of the liquid through the channel, such are not persuasive. Applicant apparently wishes for the disclosed restrictions within the channel to be read into the claim, thereby avoiding the valve(s) of the Launder reference as a viable means to decrease and then increase the flowrate through the channel by manipulation of the valve(s). While the claims are read in light of the specification, structure disclosed thereby but absent from the claims will not be read into the claims to overcome a prior art reference. The valve(s) of Launder are clearly manipulable at will by the user of the reference apparatus to adjust the flowrate (decrease then increase, if desired) through the channel containing the valve(s) to thereby adjust the output of the liquid sprayed from the nozzles connected to the outlet ends of the channel. One having ordinary skill in the art clearly possesses the basic knowledge pertinent to valve structure, and would know that manipulation of a valve, such as a well known ball valve, for example, would provide an ever changing adjustment hole shape and size through the valve to control the flowrate of the fluid passing to and through the valve.
With regard to the language added to the independent claims, “liquid flowing sequentially through the channel”, such is simply read as liquid passing from the beginning to the outlet end of the channel. Such language does not connote sequential adjustment holes or restrictions within the channel to decrease and increase the flow rate of the liquid therethrough.
As stated in the rejection statement above, flowrates and ratios thereof are process limitations that do not structurally limit the apparatus claims and therefore cannot be considered to impart patentability to the apparatus claims.
With regard to instant claim 10, the conduit elements of the reference that include the valve structures are considered to render such obvious, and as stated in the previous Office action, plumbing connections are not considered to impart patentability to a liquid flow line unless the claim recites the inclusion of a novel feature.
Lastly, with regard to the relief valve upstream of the pump assembly, the undersigned will point out that probably half of the population of the US have operated a typical pressure washer, which demonstrates the need to provide pressure relief to a water pump during the initiation of operation thereof.
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 CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/
10-10-26 /CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
