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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 4th 2026 is acknowledged. One page of amended specification and two pages of amended claims were received on 2/4/2026. Claims 1-7 have been amended. The claims have been amended to overcome some previous drawing objections, however the drawings remain objected to as noted below. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 10/23/2025, however Claim 1 is objected to and Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to because the reference character “41” appears to be cut off in Figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 9-10, “a left side of a handle” should be revised to “a left side of the handle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Lines 10-11, “a right side of a handle” should be revised to “a right side of the handle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
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 examiner notes that the term “attachment member” in Claim 7 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Though the term “attachment member” uses the generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language, an “attachment member” is determined to be structure that is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be equivalent to an “attachment”, which is as a physical connection by which one thing is attached to another.
Terminal Disclaimer
It is noted that no terminal disclaimer has been filed for this application as of the mailing date of this office action. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 27 of copending Application No. 17/772,714 (See the claims filed 1/8/2026) in view of US PGPUB 2008/0203191 A1 to Langeman (“Langeman”).
Claims 3-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 28 of copending Application No. 17/772,714 (See the claims filed 1/8/2026) in view of Langeman.
Claims 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 29 of copending Application No. 17/772,714 (See the claims filed 1/8/2026) in view of Langeman.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both documents claim the following in their device, or have elements that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included as noted for the following reasons:
Application 18/598,182
Claimed Element in Co-pending Application 17/772,714 and Obviousness Reasoning where applicable
Claim 1
Claim 27, modified by Langeman
A fluid delivery system comprising:
a tank configured to contain a fluid;
a pump fluidly coupled to the tank; and
a spray gun, wherein the spray gun comprises a handle, a winged extension member disposed to contact at least a portion of an operator’s hand when the operator holds the spray gun by the handle, a strap, and a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose.
27. A spray gun device, comprising:a mix chamber assembly having at least two bores configured to receive a first fluid and a second fluid, and a chamber fluidly coupled to the at least two bores, the chamber configured to mix the first fluid and the second fluid; a handle; and a winged extension disposed to contact at least a portion of a back hand of an operator when the operator holds the spray gun device via the handle; a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose; wherein the left coupler positioned over the winged extension on the left side of the handle is positioned outboard of the handle, and wherein the right coupler positioned over the winged extension on the right side of the handle is positioned outboard of the handle; and a removable strap extending from the winged extension to an attachment member on a bottom portion of the handle.
Claim 27 does not specifically disclose the fluid delivery system comprising a tank configured to contain a fluid and a pump fluidly coupled to the tank.
However, Langeman discloses a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1) comprising a tank (#22A) configured to contain a fluid (See Paragraph 0050), a pump (#24A) fluidly coupled to the tank (See Paragraph 0071), and a spray gun (#1).
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 Claim 27 to comprise a tank configured to contain a fluid and a pump fluidly coupled to the tank, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing metered fluid at a desired pressure (See Langeman Paragraphs 0072-0073).
Claim 2
Claim 27, modified by Langeman
2. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a side- to-side length of between 2 inches and 6 inches.
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 Claim 27 in view of Langeman to have the winged extension comprises a side-to-side of between 2 inches and 6 inches, since doing so would use a side-to-side length dimension that is appropriate for operating the spray gun with a human hand.
Claim 3
Claim 28, modified by Langeman
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a first underside groove configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator's thumb.
28. The spray gun device of claim 27, wherein the winged extension comprises a first curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator's thumb, and a second curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator's index finger.
Claim 4
Claim 28, modified by Langeman
4. The fluid delivery system of claim 3, wherein the winged extension comprises a second underside groove configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator’s index finger.
See Claim 28: “a second curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator's index finger”
Claim 5
Claim 29, modified by Langeman
5. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening configured to receive and attach a first portion of the strap.
29. The spray gun device of claim 27, wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening and a second opening configured to receive a first end of a strap, and wherein the first end of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening.
Claim 6
Claim 29, modified by Langeman
6. The fluid delivery system of claim 5, wherein the handle comprises a bottom portion configured to receive and attach a second portion of the strap.
See Claim 27: “a removable strap extending from the winged extension to an attachment member on a bottom portion of the handle”
Claim 7
Claim 29, modified by Langeman
7. The fluid delivery system of claim 6, wherein the bottom portion is configured to receive and attach the second portion of the strap by an attachment member.
See Claim 27: “a removable strap extending from the winged extension to an attachment member on a bottom portion of the handle”
Claim 8
Claim 29, modified by Langeman
8. The fluid delivery system of claim 5, 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 Claim 27: “wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening and a second opening configured to receive a first end of a strap, and wherein the first end of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening”
Claim 1 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/402,401 (See the claims filed 11/26/2025) in view of Langeman.
Claim 2 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/402,401 (See the claims filed 11/26/2025) in view of Langeman
Claims 3-4 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/402,401 (See the claims filed 11/26/2025) in view of Langeman
Claims 5-7 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/402,401 (See the claims filed 11/26/2025) in view of Langeman.
Claim 8 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/402,401 (See the claims filed 11/26/2025) in view of Langeman and US Patent 5,991,956 to Chapman (“Chapman”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both documents claim the following in their device, or have elements that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included as noted for the following reasons:
Application 18/598,182
Claimed Element in Co-pending Application 19/402,401 and Obviousness Reasoning where applicable
Claim 1
Claim 1, modified by Langeman
A fluid delivery system comprising:
a tank configured to contain a fluid;
a pump fluidly coupled to the tank; and
a spray gun, wherein the spray gun comprises a handle, a winged extension member disposed to contact at least a portion of an operator’s hand when the operator holds the spray gun by the handle, a strap, and a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose.
A spray gun for use in dispensing foam insulation, the spray gun comprising: a spray gun body, the spray gun body comprising a handle and a winged extension member configured to extend over at least a portion of an operator's back hand when the operator holds the spray gun by the handle; wherein the winged extension member comprises: a first portion adapted to extend over at least a portion of the operator's thumb; a second portion adapted to extend over at least a portion of the operator's index finger; and a third portion sized and shaped to extend over at least a portion of the webbing between the thumb and index finger; a mix chamber assembly disposed in the spray gun body; a trigger operatively connected to the spray gun body and actuatable to enable fluid flow into the mix chamber assembly; and an adjustable strap having a first portion removably coupleable with the spray gun body adjacent the winged extension member and a second portion; and an attachment member coupled to a bottom surface of the handle, wherein the second portion of the adjustable strap is removably coupleable to the attachment member.Claim 1 does not specifically disclose the fluid delivery system comprising a tank configured to contain a fluid, a pump fluidly coupled to the tank, or a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose.
However, Langeman discloses a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1) comprising a tank (#22A) configured to contain a fluid (See Paragraph 0050), a pump (#24A) fluidly coupled to the tank (See Paragraph 0071), and a spray gun (#1), along with a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose (See #21a and #21b in Figs. 6A-6B, which couple to hoses #48A and #48B and are positioned over a portion above #2 that is equivalent to a winged extension).
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 Claim 1 to comprise a tank configured to contain a fluid and a pump fluidly coupled to the tank, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing metered fluid at a desired pressure (See Langeman Paragraphs 0072-0073). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the fluid delivery system include a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing separate streams of fluid to be pumped into the fluid delivery system under pressure (See Langeman Paragraph 0072).
Claim 2
Claim 2, modified by Langeman
2. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a side- to-side length of between 2 inches and 6 inches.
2. The spray gun of claim 1, wherein the winged extension member has a side-to-side dimension of between 2 inches and 6 inches.
Claim 3
Claim 6, modified by Langeman
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a first underside groove configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator's thumb.
6. The spray gun of claim 1, wherein the winged extension member comprises curved bottom portions configured to ergonomically enhance conformability to the operator's thumb, index finger, and back hand.
Claim 4
Claim 6, modified by Langeman
4. The fluid delivery system of claim 3, wherein the winged extension comprises a second underside groove configured to comformably fit an upper portion of the operator’s index finger.
See Claim 6: “curved bottom portions configured to ergonomically enhance conformability to the operator's thumb, index finger”
Claim 5
Claim 5, modified by Langeman
5. The fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening configured to receive and attach a first portion of the strap.
5. The spray gun of claim 1, wherein the winged extension member defines at least one opening and the first portion of the strap extends through the at least one opening.
Claim 6
Claim 5, modified by Langeman
6. The fluid delivery system of claim 5, wherein the handle comprises a bottom portion configured to receive and attach a second portion of the strap.
See Claim 1: “an attachment member coupled to a bottom surface of the handle, wherein the second portion of the adjustable strap is removably coupleable to the attachment member.”
Claim 7
Claim 5, modified by Langeman
7. The fluid delivery system of claim 6, wherein the bottom portion is configured to receive and attach the second portion of the strap by an attachment member.
See Claim 1: “an attachment member coupled to a bottom surface of the handle, wherein the second portion of the adjustable strap is removably coupleable to the attachment member.”
Claim 8
Claim 5, modified by Langeman and Chapman
8. The fluid delivery system of claim 5, 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 Claim 5: “wherein the winged extension member defines at least one opening and the first portion of the strap extends through the at least one opening”
Claim 5 does not specifically disclose a second opening. However, Chapman discloses a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1 showing a system that delivers paint per Col. 2 Lines 23-35) comprising a handle (#5) comprising a winged extension (#7 and #8) that comprises a first opening (See #44 in Fig. 4) and a second opening (See #43 in Fig. 4) configured to receive a first end (See #47 in Fig. 4) of a strap (See #9 in Fig. 1), and wherein the first end of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening (See Fig. 4 and Col. 3 Lines 25-40, the strap passes through #42, #43, and #44 thus an end at #47 of the strap can be inserted into both #44 and #43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid delivery system of Claim 5 in view of Langeman above such that the winged extension also 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, as taught by Chapman since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a strap to be attached to the fluid delivery system such that a brush or another device used for facilitating coating can be carried with the spray gun (See Chapman Col. 4 Lines 8-16).
The above rejections are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,158,624 to Grigg et al. (“Grigg”) in view of US PGPUB 2008/0203191 A1 to Langeman (“Langeman”) and US Patent 5,991,956 to Chapman (“Chapman”).
As to Claim 1, Grigg discloses a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1), comprising:
a tank configured to contain a (See Col. 7 Lines 30-35 disclosing a tank of A resin);
a spray gun (See #401 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 18), wherein the spray gun comprises
a handle (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 18, the handle is a lower portion of #405),
a winged extension member (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 18, the winged extension member is an upper portion of #405 that includes wings W1 and W2) disposed to contact at least a portion of an operator's hand when the operator holds the spray gun by the handle (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 18. When an operator holds the spray gun device #401 via the handle on a lower portion of #405, a part of a hand of the operator can contact the winged extension member at W1 and W2), and
a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle (See LC in Annotated Fig. 18 which is at least partially over W1 on a left side portion of the handle) and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle (See RC in Annotated Fig. 18 which is at least partially over W2 on a right side portion of the handle), wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose (See hoses in Annotated Fig. 1 and See Col. 14 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg as applied to Claim 1 above, Grigg does not specifically disclose wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a pump fluidly coupled to the tank (See Col. 7 Lines 30-35 disclosing a tank of A resin, however no pump is specifically disclosed).
However, Langeman discloses, in the same field of endeavor of coating devices (See Paragraphs 0002-0004), a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1) comprising a tank (#22A) comprising a fluid (See Paragraph 0050), a pump (#24A) fluidly coupled to the tank (See Paragraph 0071), and a spray gun (#1).
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 Grigg as applied to Claim 1 above to comprise a pump fluidly coupled to the tank of Grigg, since doing so would yield the predictable result of providing metered fluid to the spray gun of Grigg at a desired pressure (See Langeman Paragraphs 0072-0073).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman as applied to Claim 1 above, Grigg does not specifically disclose wherein the spray gun comprises a strap.
However, Chapman discloses, in the same field of endeavor of coating devices (See Col. 1 Lines 4-8), a fluid delivery system (See Fig. 1 showing a system that delivers paint per Col. 2 Lines 23-35) comprising a handle (#5) comprising a winged extension (#7 and #8) that comprises a first opening (See #44 in Fig. 4) and a second opening (See #43 in Fig. 4) configured to receive a first end (See #47 in Fig. 4) of a strap (See #9 in Fig. 1), and wherein the first end of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening (See Fig. 4 and Col. 3 Lines 25-40, the strap passes through #42, #43, and #44 thus an end at #47 of the strap can be inserted into both #44 and #43).
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 Grigg in view of Langeman as applied to Claim 1 above such that the spray gun of Grigg comprises the strap #9 of Chapman and the winged extension of Grigg comprises a first opening #44 and a second opening #43 of Chapman configured to receive a first end of the strap, and wherein the first end of the strap may be inserted into the first opening or into the second opening, as taught by Chapman since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a strap to be attached to the spray gun of Grigg such that a brush or another device used for facilitating coating can be carried with the spray gun (See Chapman Col. 4 Lines 8-16).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 1 above, Grigg does not specifically disclose wherein the winged extension has a side-to-side length of between 2 inches and 6 inches (See Annotated Fig. 1, specific dimensions of the winged extension are not disclosed).
However, Grigg does disclose wherein the spray gun is grasped by a human hand (See Col. 14 Lines 45-50), 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 has a side-to-side length in the range of 2 inches and 6 inches, since doing so would use a side-to-side length dimension that is appropriate for operating the spray gun with a human hand.
As to Claim 3, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 1 above, Grigg further discloses wherein the winged extension comprises a first curved bottom portion configured to comformably fit an upper portion of an operator's thumb (See G1 in Annotated Fig. 18 that is formed between W1 and an upper portion of #405 and is capable of fitting an upper portion of a thumb of an operator. G1 has at least some surfaces that are partially curved).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 3 above, Grigg 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. 18 that is formed between W2 and an upper portion of #405 and is capable of fitting an upper portion of an index finger of an operator. G2 has at least some surfaces that are partially curved.).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 1 above, Grigg as modified by Chapman further discloses wherein the winged extension comprises a first opening configured to receive and attach to a first portion of the strap (See Fig. 4 and Col. 3 Lines 25-40 of Chapman, the strap passes through #42, #43, and #44 thus an end at #47 of the strap can be inserted into #44. Modifying Grigg in view of Chapman results in the winged extension having the first opening #44 of Chapman).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 5 above, Grigg as modified by Chapman further discloses wherein the handle comprises a bottom portion configured to receive and attach to a second portion of the strap (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Grigg, the bottom portion of the handle is constructed such that it is capable of having a second portion of the strap at #46 of Chapman wrapped around it).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 6 above, Grigg as modified by Chapman further discloses wherein the bottom portion is configured to receive and attach to the second portion of the strap by an attachment member (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Grigg, the attachment member of the bottom portion of the handle is constructed such that it is capable of having a second portion of the strap at #46 of Chapman wrapped around it).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as applied to Claim 5 above, Grigg as modified by Chapman 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 Fig. 4 and Col. 3 Lines 25-40 of Chapman, the strap passes through #42, #43, and #44 thus an end at #47 of the strap can be inserted into both #44 and #43. Modifying Grigg in view of Chapman results in the winged extension having the first opening #44 and the second opening #43 of Chapman.).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1, which remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman as noted above, applicant argues that Grigg alone or in combination with Langeman and Chapman does not disclose the fluid delivery system comprising a left coupler positioned over the winged extension on a left side of a handle and a right coupler positioned over the winged extension on a right side of a handle, wherein each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose.
This argument is not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Grigg discloses a left coupler #487 positioned over the winged extension on a left side portion of the handle, shown as LC in Annotated Fig. 18, which is at least partially over a portion of the winged extension at W1 on a left side portion of the handle. Grigg also discloses a right coupler #487 positioned over the winged extension on a right side portion of the handle, shown as RC in Annotated Fig. 18, which is at least partially over a portion of the winged extension at W2 on a right side portion of the handle. Grigg also discloses in Col. 14 Lines 1-5 where each of the left coupler and right coupler is configured to releasably receive a hose, as seen in Annotated Fig. 1. Therefore, the disclosure of Grigg reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the newly presented limitations, the fluid delivery system of Grigg in view of Langeman and Chapman reads on the limitations of Claim 1, and Claims 1-8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted above. The examiner notes that more particularly claiming structural limitations of the fluid delivery system, including features of the claimed winged extension, may overcome the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 31, 2026