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 amendment filed June 29th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 20-27 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 28th, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cavity in claim 1, ln. 8 and the bearing surface in claim 20, ln. 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: a cavity in claim 1, ln. 5.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the trigger of the trigger assembly is configured to receive a palm of a user hand and the handle of the handle assembly is configured to receive one or more fingers of the user hand” in ln. 1-3. This limitation is not supported by the written description, which only states “Specifically, trigger lock mechanism 64 may auto-engage such that the user is required to grasp fully around the handle to unlock the device” in paragraph 0035. The specification does not specifically describe the trigger of the trigger assembly is configured to receive a palm of a user hand and the handle of the handle assembly is configured to receive one or more fingers of the user hand.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 20-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front surface of the handle assembly" in ln. 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a front surface of the handle assembly” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front surface of the handle assembly" in ln. 10-11. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the front surface of the cavity previously recited in the claim or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the front surface of the cavity previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 20-27 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a spray applicator (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a manifold (interpreting as a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) comprising a plurality of fluid chambers (45, 47, Fig. 4), the manifold (16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) defining a front end (front end of housing 16 connecting to nozzle assembly 20, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4) associated with delivery of fluid flow from the plurality of fluid chambers (component streams enter nozzle assembly 20 before exiting outlet tip portion 32, Paragraph 0038) and a rear end (rear end of housing 16 opposite of the front end, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4) located opposite the front end (shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4);
a handle assembly (12, Figs. 1-2B) comprising a handle (14, Figs. 1-2B) and a cavity (upper portion of gun body 12, shown in Figs. 1-2B) configured to fixedly receive the manifold (16, upper portion of the gun body 12 includes the flow control valve housing 16, Figs. 1-2B, 4, Paragraph 0029), wherein the cavity (upper portion of gun body 12, shown in Figs. 1-2B) defines an opening at a front surface of the cavity (annotated in Fig. 1) that allows at least a portion of the front end of the manifold (front end of housing 16 connecting to nozzle assembly 20, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4) to extend outwardly beyond the front surface of the handle assembly (annotated in Fig. 1) when the manifold (16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) is fixedly received in the cavity (upper portion of gun body 12, shown in Figs. 1-2B);
a trigger assembly (24, 59, 60, 52, 26, Figs. 1-2B) configured to be attached adjacent (interpreting as nearby, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to at least a portion of the rear end of the manifold (rear end of housing 16 opposite of the front end, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4), wherein a trigger (24, Figs. 1-2B) of the trigger assembly (24, 59, 60, 52, 26, Figs. 1-2B) extending rearwardly from the rear end of the manifold (rear end of housing 16 opposite of the front end, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4) is configured to be actuated in a direction towards the handle assembly (12, Figs. 1-2B) to cause delivery of fluid flow from the plurality of fluid chambers (45, 47, rotational movement of trigger 24 results in corresponding rotational movement of valves 100 and 102 which opens and closes the valves 100, 102, trigger 24 is in the open position shown in Fig. 2B, Figs. 2B, 4, Paragraphs 0037-0038).
PNG
media_image1.png
693
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray further discloses a nozzle (20, Figs. 1-2B) configured to be attached adjacent to the front surface of the handle assembly (annotated in Fig. 1) via the portion of the front end of the manifold (front end of housing 16 connecting to nozzle assembly 20, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4) that extends outwardly beyond the front surface of the handle assembly (annotated in Fig. 1), wherein fluid flow from the plurality of fluid chambers (45, 47, Fig. 4) of the manifold (16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) is configured to be delivered into the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4, Paragraph 0046).
In regards to claim 23, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1, wherein the trigger (24, Figs. 1-2B) of the trigger assembly (24, 59, 60, 52, 26, Figs. 1-2B) is configured to receive a palm of a user hand (trigger 24 is pulled to a fully opened or closed position by a user, Paragraphs 0028, 0044) and the handle (14, Figs. 1-2B) of the handle assembly (12, Figs. 1-2B) is configured to receive one or more fingers of the user hand (handle 14 is preferably contoured to provide a comfortable ergonomic fit in a user’s hand, Paragraph 0028).
In regards to claim 27, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 14. Murray discloses the manifold (16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) further defines a dividing wall (annotated in Fig. 4) extending from the front end (shown in Fig. 4), the dividing wall (annotated in Fig. 4) configured to segregate the fluid flow from the plurality of fluid chambers (45, 47, Fig. 4) before the fluid flow contacts a static agitator of a static mixer (34, Fig. 4) comprised in the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
805
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Poppe et al. (US 20160199862 A1) and Tibell (US 20200070180 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the spray applicator is snap-fit together based on at least a portion of the front end of the manifold snap-fitting into the cavity of the handle assembly and the trigger assembly snap-fitting to at least a portion of the rear end of the manifold.
Poppe teaches the spray applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1) is snap-fit together based on at least a portion of the front end of the manifold (6, Figs. 2-4, 6) snap-fitting into the cavity of the handle assembly (internal surface within handle 2, cap 6 may be attached to the handle 2 by a snap-in connection, shown in Figs. 2-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021).
Murray and Poppe 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 and handle as taught by Poppe’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the motivation of providing a secure connection between the manifold and the handle and allows the manifold to be easily removable (Poppe, Paragraphs 0020-0021).
However, Murray and Poppe do not teach the spray applicator is snap-fit together based on the trigger assembly snap-fitting to at least a portion of the rear end of the manifold.
Tibell teaches the spray applicator (entire structure, Fig. 1) is snap-fit together based on the trigger assembly (4, Figs. 1-2) snap-fitting to at least a portion of the rear end (22, Fig. 2) of the manifold (203, snap member 44 of integral unit 4 permits snap mounting with snap member 22, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0043).
Murray, Poppe, and Tibell 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 trigger assembly and the manifold as taught by Tibell’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, as modified by Poppe, to have the motivation to secure and retain the trigger assembly allowing it to deform temporarily without getting damaged or permanently deformed (Tibell, Paragraphs 0016, 0043).
Regarding claim 5, Murray, as modified by Poppe and Tibell, discloses the spray applicator of claim 2. Tibell further teaches the trigger assembly (4, Figs. 1-2) further comprises a rear hood structure (44, Fig. 2) that is configured for snap-fitting the trigger assembly (4, Figs. 1-2) to the portion of the rear end (22, Fig. 2) of the manifold (203, snap member 44 of integral unit 4 permits snap mounting with snap member 22, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0043).
Claim 6 is 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 configured to be pressurized by fluid flow therethrough but the handle assembly and trigger assembly are not pressurized by fluid flow through the manifold.
Pomeroy teaches an applicator (10, Figs. 1A-2) comprising the manifold (100, 212, Fig. 11) is configured to be 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 through the manifold (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 motivation of providing 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 motivation of preventing 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 teaches 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), and wherein the data can be downloaded from the internal control unit (control system 38 may be coupled to a monitor system 36, Paragraph 0020).
Claims 12 is 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. Murray further discloses the plurality of fluid chambers (45, 47, Fig. 4) comprises:
a first fluid chamber (45, Fig. 4) associated with delivery of 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, 0041), and
a second fluid chamber (47, Fig. 4) associated with delivery of 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, 0041).
However, Murray does not explicitly disclose a third fluid chamber associated with delivery of a third fluid, wherein the third fluid is air, and the third fluid chamber is configured to increase bubbling, splattering, or a combination thereof during application of the first fluid component and second fluid component.
Brown teaches a third fluid chamber (322, Fig. 7) associated with delivery of a third fluid, wherein the third fluid is air (passage 322 provides an inlet for gas or the like, Col. 7, Ln. 19-25), and the third fluid chamber (322, Fig. 7) is configured to increase bubbling, splattering, or a combination thereof during application of the first fluid component and second fluid component (fluid within passage 322 is mixed with the reacting ingredients, and can be frothed or foamed, Col. 7, Ln. 19-31).
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 the motivation of providing a desired pressure in the applicator (Brown, Col. 1, Ln. 50-61).
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. Murray discloses a spray tube (32, Fig. 4) connected to the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4). 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 motivation of providing a desired spray pattern (Burkart, Paragraph 0024).
Claims 16-17 are 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. Murray discloses a spray tube (32, Fig. 4) connected to the nozzle (20, shown in Fig. 4). 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 motivation of allowing the user to use multiple nozzles per spraying operation (Jerdee, Paragraph 0017).
In regards to claim 17, Murray, as modified by Burkart, discloses the spray applicator of claim 16. Jerdee teaches 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).
Claim 18 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) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Burkart et al. (US 20200094269 A1).
In regards to claim 18, Murray, as modified by Jerdee, discloses the spray applicator of claim 17. However, Murray and Jerdee do not teach the first and second spray outlets each terminate in a fan-shaped outlet.
Burkart teaches a fan-shaped outlet (17b, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0051).
Murray, Jerdee, 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, as modified by Jerdee, to have the motivation of providing a desired spray pattern (Burkart, Paragraph 0024).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1) in view of Hurray et al. (US Patent 6,345,776).
With respect to claim 20, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. However, Murray does not disclose the trigger of the trigger assembly comprises a cam and at least a portion of the rear end of the manifold defines a bearing surface, and wherein the cam of the trigger rotates against the bearing surface of the manifold when the trigger is actuated.
Hurray teaches the trigger of the trigger assembly (20, Figs. 1-3) comprises a cam (115, annular collar surface 115 is chamfered to produce a cam pivot and camming surface for crossbar line contact 112, Figs. 14A-B, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42, Col. 18, Ln. 50-58) and at least a portion of the rear end of the manifold (16, Figs. 14A-B) defines a bearing surface (surface of body portion 16 contacting trigger 20, shown in Figs. 14A-B), and wherein the cam of the trigger (115, Figs. 14A-B) rotates against the bearing surface (surface of body portion 16 contacting trigger 20, shown in Figs. 14A-B) of the manifold (16, Figs. 14A-B) when the trigger is actuated (shown in Figs. 14A-B, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42, Col. 18, Ln. 50-58).
Murray and Hurray 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 cam and the bearing surface as taught in Hurray’s applicator, to Murray’s applicator, to have the motivation of providing better operator control in fine metering applications while the crossbar positively assures equal movement of both metering rods (Hurray, Col. 5, Ln. 13-42).
Regarding claim 21, Murray, as modified by Hurray, discloses the spray applicator of claim 20. Hurray teaches the cam of the trigger (115, Figs. 14A-B) rotating against the bearing surface (surface of body portion 16 contacting trigger 20, Figs. 14A-B) of the manifold (16, Figs. 14A-B) is configured to counteract an increasing force of spring compression as the trigger is actuated in the direction towards the handle (manually operable trigger moves the metering rod against the bias of the spring, Col. 5, Ln. 2-11, Claim 1).
In regards to claim 22, Murray, as modified by Hurray, discloses the spray applicator of claim 20. Hurray further teaches the rear end of the manifold (16, Figs. 14A-B) comprises a notch portion (47, Figs. 14A-B) and the cam (115, Figs. 14A-B) comprises a perpendicular end portion (45, Figs. 14A-B) configured to fit within the notch portion (47, shown in Figs. 14A-B).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1), embodiment of Figs. 1-6, in view of Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1), embodiment of Figs. 7-10.
Regarding claim 24, Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 1. Murray discloses the manifold (16, Figs. 1-2B, 4) comprises a plurality of valves (100, 102, Fig. 4).
However, Murray does not disclose a plurality of springs, wherein each valve of the plurality of valves has a corresponding spring of the plurality of springs, and wherein each valve and the corresponding spring is configured to control fluid flow associated with a corresponding fluid chamber of the plurality of fluid chambers comprised in the manifold in one embodiment.
In the embodiment of Figs. 7-10, Murray discloses a plurality of springs (311, Figs. 7-10), wherein each valve of the plurality of valves (300, 302, Figs. 7-8B, 10) has a corresponding spring of the plurality of springs (311, shown in Fig. 10, Paragraphs 0054, 0056), and wherein each valve and the corresponding spring is configured to control fluid flow associated with a corresponding fluid chamber of the plurality of fluid chambers (245, 247, Figs. 7-9) comprised in the manifold (216, springs 311 apply a force against valves 300 and 302 to close them, and prevent fluid flow from outlet passages 245 and 247, Figs. 7-9, Paragraphs 0056-0057).
Murray is 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 plurality of springs as taught in Murray’s applicator in the embodiment of Figs. 7-10, to Murray’s applicator, in the embodiment of Figs. 1-6, to have the motivation of providing individual control over the operation of the valves (Murray, Paragraphs 0056-0057).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1), embodiment of Figs. 1-6, in view of Murray et al. (US 20060208000 A1), embodiment of Figs. 7-10, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Grigg et al. (US Patent 6,158,624).
With respect to claim 25, both embodiments of Murray discloses the spray applicator of claim 24. However, both embodiments of Murray do not disclose at least one of the plurality of valves is a needle valve configured to project through an opening of the front end of the manifold when the trigger is in a rest position associated with blocking the delivery of fluid flow.
Grigg teaches at least one of the plurality of valves (81, Figs. 2A-2B) is a needle valve (needles 81 are valve elements, Col. 8, Ln. 9-35) configured to project through an opening of the front end of the manifold (front end of housing 7, shown in Figs. 2A-2B) when the trigger (191, Fig. 1A) is in a rest position associated with blocking the delivery of fluid flow (shown in Fig. 2A).
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 motivation of providing easier control of fluid to pass through flow paths (Grigg, Col. 8, Ln. 9-35).
With respect to claim 26, both embodiments of Murray, as modified by Grigg, disclose the spray applicator of claim 25. In the embodiment of Figs. 1-6, Murray discloses actuating the trigger (24, Figs. 1-2B) from the rest position towards the handle assembly compresses the spring (60, shown in Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0044) to allow each of the valves to retract from the opening of the front end of the manifold (front end of housing 16 connecting to nozzle assembly 20, shown in Figs. 1-2B, 4, Paragraphs 0043-0044), and as modified by the embodiment of Fig. 7-10 and Grigg above, would result in actuating the trigger from the rest position towards the handle assembly compresses each of the plurality of springs to allow each of the needle valves to retract from the opening of the front end of the manifold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Murray does not disclose the amended features of claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 8-11, Murray does disclose these features as noted above in the 102(a)(1) rejection for claim 1. Murray states upper portion of the gun body 12 includes the flow control valve housing 16 in Paragraph 0029, and it is annotated in Fig. 1 above that the upper portion of gun body 12 defines an opening at a front surface of the upper portion of gun body 12 that allows at least a portion of the front end of the manifold to extend outwardly beyond the front surface of the handle assembly when the manifold is fixedly received in the cavity.
It is also being interpreted that adjacent is nearby as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Trigger assembly (24, 59, 60, 52, 26, Figs. 1-2B) of Murray is shown to be attached nearby at least a portion of the rear end of housing 16 opposite of the front end in Figs. 1-2B, 4. Trigger 24 in Murray is also shown to be extending rearwardly from the rear end of housing 16 opposite of the front end in Figs. 1-2B, 4.
Additionally, it appears the cavity in claim 1, ln. 8 is new matter as explained above in the specification objection and the 112(a) rejection for claim 1. The original disclosure does not describe or explain the structure of a cavity.
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 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
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights