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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an internal control unit in claim 9, ln. 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. It will be interpreted that the internal control unit is a sensor, a printed circuit assembly, a memory, an accelerometer, or an optical indicator, as described in Paragraph 0043 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “around” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the handle assembly and the trigger assembly are connected together around the manifold. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the handle assembly and the trigger assembly are connected together adjacent the manifold.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the dual stream outlet" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a dual stream outlet” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The feature recited in ln. 1 of claim 17, “the dual stream outlet”, appears to be claimed in claim 16, but claim 17 is dependent on claim 15. It appears claim 17 should be dependent from claim 16 instead. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a spray applicator (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a fluid manifold (interpreting as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) having a first fluid chamber (45, Fig. 4) and a second fluid chamber (47, Fig. 4);
a first valve (100, Fig. 4) permitting fluid flow into the first fluid chamber (45, flow through outlet passage 45 is controlled by valve 100, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0043);
a second valve (102, Fig. 4) permitting fluid flow into the second fluid chamber (47, flow through outlet passage 47 is controlled by valve 102, it is noted that in Paragraph 0043 outlet passage is referenced as ref. number 46, but this appears to be a typo because it is otherwise referenced as ref. number 47 throughout the publication, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0043);
wherein both the first and second valves (100, 102, Fig. 4) are received into the fluid manifold (16, shown in Fig. 4),
a handle assembly (14, Figs. 1-2B);
a nozzle (20, Figs. 1-2B) attached to the handle assembly (14, shown in Figs. 1-2B), wherein fluid flows out of the first and second fluid chambers (45, 47, Fig. 4) and into the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraph 0046);
a trigger assembly (24, Figs. 1-2B), wherein movement of the trigger assembly (24, Figs. 1-2B) opens and closes the first and second valves (rotational movement of trigger 24 results in corresponding rotational movement of valves 100 and 102 which opens and closes the valves 100, 102, Paragraphs 0037-0038); and
wherein the handle assembly (14, Figs. 1-2B) and trigger assembly (24, Figs. 1-2B) are connected together around the manifold (interpreting as 16, shown in Figs. 1-2B).
Regarding claim 2, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses the spray applicator (10, Fig. 1) is snap-fit together (gun assembly 10 has grooves 114 that receive retaining rings 116 which are preferably snap rings to create a snap-fit in the gun assembly 10, Paragraph 0033).
In regards in claim 3, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses a static mixer (34, Fig. 4) within the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses a first fluid hose (31, Fig. 4) connected to the first valve (100, shown in Fig. 4), and
a second fluid hose (33, Fig. 4) connected to the second valve (102, shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses a spray tube (32, Fig. 4) connected to the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Grigg et al. (US Patent 6,158,624).
In regards to claim 4, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the first and second valves are needle valves projecting into the manifold. Grigg teaches a spray applicator (1, Figs. 1A-1B) comprising the first and second valves (81, Figs. 2A-2B) are needle valves (needles 81 are valve elements, Col. 8, Ln. 9-35) projecting into the manifold (7, shown in Figs. 2A-2B).
Murray and Grigg are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the needle valves in Grigg’s applicator to Murray’s applicator, to have the first and second valves are needle valves projecting into the manifold. Doing so provides easier control of fluid to pass through flow paths (Grigg, Col. 8, Ln. 9-35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Escoto, Jr. et al. (US Patent 10,071,388).
Regarding claim 5, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the manifold is snap fit into the handle assembly and into the trigger assembly. Escoto teaches a spray applicator (10, Fig. 1) comprising the manifold (12, Fig. 1) is snap fit into the handle assembly (19, Fig. 1) and into the trigger assembly (50, spray guns may have two halves of a solid body and may be assembled through snap-fit tabs, creating a snap fit, Fig. 1, Col. 1, Ln. 42-54).
Murray and Escoto are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the manifold, the handle assembly, and the trigger assembly in Escoto’s applicator to Murray’s applicator, to have the manifold is snap fit into the handle assembly and into the trigger assembly. Doing so provides disassembly and reuse (Escoto, Col. 1, Ln. 42-54).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Pomeroy et al. (US 20180126527 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the manifold is pressurized by fluid flow therethrough but the handle assembly and trigger assembly are not pressurized by fluid flow therethrough. Pomeroy teaches an applicator (10, Figs. 1A-2) comprising the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) is pressurized by fluid flow therethrough (there is pressure in the gas storage chamber 118 exceeds a second safety pressure greater than the first safety pressure that can cause rupturing of the rupturable portion 212 of safety rupture bore 100, Paragraph 0043) but the handle assembly (70, Figs. 1A-2) and trigger assembly (74, Figs. 1A-2) are not pressurized by fluid flow therethrough (portion 212 ruptures to permit pressurized gas from the gas storage chamber 118 to be released to the atmosphere to prevent unsafe failure of the gas cylinder assembly 22, which prevents other components of the driver 10 to be pressurized, such as the handle 70 or the trigger 74, Paragraph 0043).
Murray and Pomeroy are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the manifold, the handle assembly, and the trigger assembly as taught in Pomeroy’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the manifold is pressurized by fluid flow therethrough but the handle assembly and trigger assembly are not pressurized by fluid flow therethrough. Doing so provides a pressure relief failsafe in
the applicator (Pomeroy, Paragraph 0043).
In regards to claim 7, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the manifold is configured to burst in an overpressure situation. Pomeroy teaches an applicator (10, Figs. 1A-2) comprising the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) is configured to burst in an overpressure situation (safety rupture bore 100 has a rupturable portion 212 that ruptures when the pressure in the gas storage chamber 118 exceeds a second safety pressure greater than the first safety pressure, Paragraph 0043).
Murray and Pomeroy are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air pressurized applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the manifold as taught in Pomeroy’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the manifold is configured to burst in an overpressure situation. Doing so provides a pressure relief failsafe in the applicator (Pomeroy, Paragraph 0043).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Hasselschwert (US 20150238986 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not claim an accelerometer and an internal control unit as claimed. Hasselschwert teaches a spray applicator (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
an accelerometer (36, not explicitly shown, but monitor system 36 can have an accelerometer, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0020) configured to detect movement of the spray applicator (10, accelerometer detects an orientation of the electrostatic spray device, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0020), and
an internal control unit (38, Fig. 1) in communication with the accelerometer (36, shown in Fig. 1), wherein the internal control unit (38, Fig. 1) is configured to power down the spray applicator (10, Fig. 1) after a predetermined passage of time with no detected movement (monitor system 36 can indicate when a user is not using the electrostatic spray system and the power module 24 can shut off the power supply 25 based on a time of inactivity, Paragraph 0020).
Murray and Hasselschwert are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the accelerometer and the internal control unit as taught in Hasselschwert’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have an accelerometer configured to detect movement of the spray applicator and an internal control unit in communication with the accelerometer, wherein the internal control unit is configured to power down the spray applicator after a predetermined passage of time with no detected movement. Doing so prevents compressed air from flowing through the device, which results in increased costs and/or wear to the spray device (Hasselschwert, Paragraph 0003).
In regards to claim 10, Murray, as modified by Hasselschwert, discloses the spray applicator of claim 9. Hasselschwert further discloses the internal control unit (38, Fig. 1) logs any one of movement data, product temperature data, or pressure data of the spray applicator over time (control system 38 is provided with pressure data, Paragraph 0020).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Hasselschwert (US 20150238986 A1) as applied to claims 9-10 above, and further in view of Scott (US 20170259288 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Murray, as modified by Hasselschwert, discloses the spray applicator of claim 10. However, Murray and Hasselschwert do not explicitly disclose the data can be downloaded from the internal control unit. Scott teaches a spray applicator (14, Fig. 1) comprising the data can be downloaded from the internal control unit (“controller”, 11, data can be downloaded from sensors analyzed by the controller by connecting to the process communication system 10, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0040).
Murray, Hasselschwert, and Scott are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the internal control unit as taught in Scott’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, as modified by Hasselschwert, to have the data can be downloaded from the internal control unit. Doing so provides communication and data that prevents inconsistent use of materials and cost (Scott, Paragraph 0004).
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Brown (US Patent 6,021,961).
With respect to claim 12, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not explicitly disclose a third fluid chamber in the manifold, and a third valve permitting fluid flow into the third fluid chamber. Brown teaches a spray applicator (entire structure, Fig. 7) comprising a third fluid chamber (322, Fig. 7) in the manifold (272, shown in Fig. 7), and
a third valve (326, 328, Figs. 8-9) permitting fluid flow into the third fluid chamber (322, there are valve leaflets that extend over two or more inlet openings, which open and close the openings by their own resiliency, Fig. 7, Col. 3, Ln. 58 to Col. 4, Ln. 3).
Murray and Brown are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the third fluid chamber and the third valve as taught in Brown’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have a third fluid chamber in the manifold, and a third valve permitting fluid flow into the third fluid chamber. Doing so provides a desired pressure in the applicator (Brown, Col. 1, Ln. 50-61).
Regarding claim 13, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses a first fluid component (“A” component, there is a first component inlet 28 that connects to fitting 31, supplying the component to outlet passage 45, shown in Figs. 1, 4, Paragraphs 0007, 0026) in the first fluid chamber (45, Fig. 4), and a second fluid component (“B” component, there is a second component inlet 30 that connects to fitting 33, supplying the component to outlet passage 47, shown in Figs. 1, 4, Paragraphs 0007, 0026) in the second fluid chamber (47, Fig. 4).
However, Murray does not explicitly disclose air in the third fluid chamber. Brown teaches a spray applicator (entire structure, Fig. 7) comprising air (“gas”, Col. 7, Ln. 19-25) in the third fluid chamber (322, Fig. 7).
Murray and Brown are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the third fluid chamber as taught in Brown’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have air in the third fluid chamber. Doing so provides a desired pressure in the applicator (Brown, Col. 1, Ln. 50-61).
With respect to claim 19, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the first and second valves are spool valves. Brown teaches a spray applicator (10, Fig. 1) comprising the valve (50, Fig. 2) is a spool valve (52, Fig. 2, Col. 5, Ln. 17-32).
Murray and Brown are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the valve as taught in Brown’s applicator, to the valves taught in Murray’s applicator, to have the first and second valves are spool valves. Doing so aligns the position of the passages to a position of registry better (Brown, Col. 5, Ln. 17-32).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Burkart et al. (US 20200094269 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 14. However, Murray does not disclose the spray tube terminates in a fan-shaped outlet. Burkart teaches a spray applicator (14, Fig. 4) comprising the spray tube (26, Fig. 4) terminates in a fan-shaped outlet (17b, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0051).
Murray and Burkart are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the outlet as taught in Burkart’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the spray tube terminates in a fan-shaped outlet. Doing so provides a desired spray pattern (Burkart, Paragraph 0024).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Jerdee et al. (US 20190151871 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 14. However, Murray does not disclose the spray tube terminates in a dual stream outlet. Jerdee teaches a spray applicator (100, Fig. 1A) comprising the spray tube (112, Fig. 1A) terminates in a dual stream outlet (102, 104, Fig. 1A).
Murray and Jerdee are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dual stream outlet as taught in Jerdee’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the spray tube terminates in a dual stream outlet. Doing so allows the user to use multiple nozzles per spraying operation (Jerdee, Paragraph 0017).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Burkart et al. (US 20200094269 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jerdee et al. (US 20190151871 A1).
In regards to claim 17, Murray, as modified by Burkart, discloses the spray applicator of claim 15. However, Murray and Burkart do not teach the dual stream outlet comprises first and second spray outlets positioned a fixed distance apart. Jerdee teaches a spray applicator (100, Fig. 1A) comprising the dual stream outlet (102, 104, Fig. 1A) comprises first and second spray outlets (102, 104, Fig. 1A) positioned a fixed distance apart (shown in Fig. 1A).
Murray, Burkart, and Jerdee are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray applicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dual stream outlet as taught in Jerdee’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, as modified by Burkart, to have the dual stream outlet comprises first and second spray outlets positioned a fixed distance apart. Doing so allows the user to use multiple nozzles per spraying operation and prevent component hardening from mixing (Jerdee, Paragraph 0017).
In regards to claim 18, Murray, as modified by Burkart and Jerdee, discloses the spray applicator of claim 17. Burkart teaches a fan-shaped outlet (17b, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0051), and as modified by Jerdee regarding claim 17 above, would result in the first and second spray outlets each terminate in a fan-shaped outlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752