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 on 8/3/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 4/3/2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on August 3rd 2026 is acknowledged. Nine pages of amended drawings and three pages of amended claims were received on 8/3/2026. The drawings have been amended such that they are no longer objected to. Claim 1 has been amended and Claims 9-15 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection mailed 4/2/2026, however Claims 1-15 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below. Furthermore, newly presented Claims 10 and 15 are objected to as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 10 Lines 2-3, “the mixed first fluid and second fluid” should be revised to “a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 15 Line 2, “into the chamber inside of tangent to the chamber” should be revised to “inside of a line that is tangent to the chamber” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0126396 A1 to Ellis et al. (“Ellis”) in view of US PGPUB 2018/0353982 A1 to Owens et al. (“Owens”) and US PGPUB 2008/020 of CN-208873153-U to Fang (“Fang”).
As to Claim 1, Ellis discloses a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 2 showing the entire system) comprising:
a tank (#252) configured to contain a fluid; and
a spray gun (#200), wherein the spray gun comprises
a handle (See Annotated Fig. 1A),
a body coupled with the handle (See Annotated Fig. 1A, the body is portions of the spray gun that does not include the winged extension and is coupled with the handle via portions of the winged extension),
a winged extension member disposed to extend over at least a portion of an operator's hand when the operator holds the spray gun by the handle (See Annotated Fig. 1A, the winged extension member is a portion of the spray gun body that includes winged extensions P1 and P2, and is constructed such that when an operator holds the spray gun, the winged extension member will extend over parts of the operator’s hand), the winged extension member having a first portion extending laterally outward of a first side of the body to a left edge (See P1 in Annotated Fig. 1A. A left edge of P1 can be considered an outward most end of P1) and a second portion extending laterally outward of a second side of the body opposite the first side of the body to an opposite right edge (See P1 in Annotated Fig. 1A. A right edge of P2 can be considered an outward most end of P2), and
a left coupler (#117) positioned laterally outward of the first side of the body over the first portion of the winged extension member (See Annotated Fig. 1A, the left coupler is vertically above the winged extension) and a right coupler (#116) positioned laterally outward of the second side of the body over the second portion of the winged extension member (See Annotated Fig. 1A, the right coupler is vertically above the winged extension), wherein the left coupler is configured to releasably receive a first hose and the right coupler is configured to releasably receive a second hose (See Figs. 1A-1C and Paragraph 0068. Hoses #113 and #114 can be releasably attached to couplers #116 and #117).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis does not specifically disclose wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a pump fluidly coupled to the tank (See Paragraph 0075 disclosing that #252 can be pressurized, but a pump is not specifically disclosed).
However, Owens discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid delivery (See Paragraph 0002), a fluid delivery system comprising a tank configured to contain a fluid, a pump fluidly coupled to the tank, and a spray gun (See Paragraphs 0012-0014 disclosing a component source, which is equivalent to a tank, having a fluid pumped into a plural component spray gun mixer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid delivery system of Ellis as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fluid delivery system comprises a pump fluidly coupled to the tank as taught by Owens, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to deliver fluid to the spray gun at a desired pressure (See Owens Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis does not specifically disclose the spray gun comprising a strap.
However, Fang discloses a gun device (See Fig. 1) comprising a strap (#5, which is capable of being adjusted per Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraphs 1-2. The strap has a first portion that is a “first end” in Annotated Fig. 1 and is removably coupleable with a gun body adjacent an extension member that is an “extension” in Annotated Fig. 1. The strap has a second portion that is the “second end” in Annotated Fig. 1 and an attachment member #10 that is coupled to a bottom surface of a handle that is the “bottom portion of handle” in Annotated Fig. 1. The second portion of the adjustable strap is removably coupleable to the attachment member as shown in Annotated Fig. 1).
It is noted that while Fang is not in the same field of endeavor, Fang addresses problems that are reasonably pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, specifically effectively affixing a gun on a hand and avoiding excessive force being exerted on a person (See the Abstract of Fang and See Paragraph 0045 of Applicant’s Specification”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens as applied to Claim 1 above such that the spray gun of Ellis comprises the strap of Fang having a first portion removably coupleable with the body of the spray gun adjacent the winged extension member of Ellis and a second portion; and the attachment member of Fang coupled to a bottom surface of the handle of Ellis, such that the second portion of the adjustable strap is removably coupleable to the attachment member, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a person to have the spray gun effectively supported on either hand (See Abstract of Fang and See Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraph 2).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis does not specifically disclose wherein the winged extension member has a side-to-side length of between 2 inches and 6 inches (See Annotated Fig. 1A, specific dimensions of the winged extension are not disclosed).
However, Ellis does disclose wherein the spray gun is grasped by a human hand (See Paragraph 0006), and human hands are known to have lengths within the claimed range of 2 inches to 6 inches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the winged extension member have a side-to-side length of between 2 inches and 6 inches, since doing so would use a side-to-side dimension that is appropriate for operating the spray gun with a human hand.
As to Claim 3, in reference to fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the winged extension member comprises a first curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of an operator's thumb (See G1 in Annotated Fig. 1A, which is a curved groove on P1 that is capable of conformably fitting an upper portion of a thumb of some operator).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 3 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the winged extension comprises a second curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of an operator's index finger (See G2 in Annotated Fig. 1A, which is a curved groove on an opposite side of the spray gun on P2 that is capable of conformably fitting an upper portion of an index finger of some operator.
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis as modified by Fang further discloses wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening configured to receive and attach to a first portion of the strap (See Fang Annotated Fig. 1, the first end of the strap extends through the first opening).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 5 above, Ellis as modified by Fang further discloses wherein the handle comprises a bottom portion configured to receive and attach to a second portion of the strap (See Fang Annotated Fig. 1 and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraph 1).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 6 above, Ellis as modified by Fang further discloses wherein the bottom portion is configured to receive and attach to the second portion of the strap by an attachment member (See Fang Annotated Fig. 1 and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraph 1).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 5 above, Ellis as modified by Fang further discloses wherein the winged extension comprises a second opening configured to receive the first portion of the strap, and wherein the first portion of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening (See Fang Annotated Fig. 1, the first end of the strap extends through the first opening and can also extend through the second opening).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the spray gun comprises a mix chamber assembly (#110) having at least two bores (#121 and #122) configured to receive a first fluid and a second fluid (See Paragraph 0068), and a chamber fluidly coupled to the at least two bores, the chamber configured to mix the first fluid and the second fluid (See Fig. 3A and Paragraph 0068).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 9 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the spray gun further comprises a mix tip (#129) fluidly coupled to the chamber and configured to expel the mixed first fluid and second fluid (See Figs. 3A-3B and Paragraph 0064), and wherein the mix tip is removable from the spray gun and replaceable (See Figs. 3A-3B showing threads on #128 thus the mix tip as a hole can be removed and replaced with another mix tip).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 9 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the spray gun further comprises a trigger (#111) operable to enable a flow of the first fluid and the second fluid into the mix chamber assembly (See Paragraph 0067).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Ellis as modified by Fang further discloses wherein the strap is removable from the spray gun (See Fang Annotated Fig. 1 and Machine Translation of Description Page 4 Paragraphs 1-2).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 10 above, Ellis further discloses wherein the mix tip comprises an opening (#145, See Paragraph 0065), and wherein the orifice is one of a plurality of orifice sizes (See Figs. 3A-3B. #145 is shown as having one orifice but is capable of being altered to a different orifice size or replaced with another mix tip having a different orifice size).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 9 above, Ellis does not specifically disclose wherein the at least two bores are configured to introduce the first fluid and the second fluid into the chamber inside of tangent to the chamber (See Figs. 3A-3B, the first fluid and second fluid being introduced into the chamber inside of a line that is tangent to the chamber is not specifically shown).
However, Owens further discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid delivery (See Paragraph 0002), a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1A) comprising a spray gun (#100) that comprises a mix chamber assembly (See #300 in Fig. 3A) having at least two bores (See #310 and #320 in Fig. 3A that run along axis A1 and axis A2) configured to receive a first fluid and a second fluid (See Paragraph 0023), and a chamber fluidly coupled to the at least two bores (See Annotated Fig. 3A showing a chamber that runs along axis A1), the chamber configured to mix the first fluid and the second fluid wherein the at least two bores are configured to introduce the first fluid and the second fluid into the chamber inside of tangent to the chamber (See Annotated Fig. 3A and See Fig. 3B. The bores #310 and #320 are radially offset such that they are arranged inside of a line that is tangent to the chamber)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 9 above to utilize the mix chamber assembly of Owens in place of the mix chamber assembly of Ellis such that the at least two bores are configured to introduce the first fluid and the second fluid into the chamber inside of tangent to the chamber, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a known mix chamber assembly suitable for mixing two components with rotational motion (See Owens Paragraphs 0023 and 0029 and See Fig. 4D).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Owens, Fang, and WO-2013036331-A1 to Freuler (“Freuler”).
Regarding Claim 13, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above, Fang does not specifically disclose wherein the strap comprises at least one of a fabric, a leather, a plastic, or a rubber (See Page 4 Paragraph 2 of Machine Translation of Description. Specific strap materials are not disclosed).
However, Freuler discloses a system comprising an adjustable strap that is made from fabric, plastic, or rubber (See Paragraphs 0048-0049). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray gun of Ellis in view of Owens and Fang as applied to Claim 1 above such that the strap comprises fabric, plastic, or rubber as taught by Freuler, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a material that is suitable to redistribute weight of the spray gun to larger muscles of a user’s hand (See Freuler Paragraph 0048).
PNG
media_image1.png
939
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
937
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
646
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/3/2026 with respect to Claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that amending the claims to further specify structural features of the openings #308 and #310 of the winged extension member that the strap extends through as shown in Fig. 3 may overcome the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights