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 7 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejection of claim 22 and each and every prior art rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 20 February 2026; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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: “a rotatable nozzle securing component configured to receive a protrusion of the nozzle” in claim 21.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: none appears to be disclosed in the as-filed Specification and Drawings.
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 21-32 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 limitation “a rotatable nozzle securing component” in claim 21 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description is devoid of the phrase “nozzle securing component” making it unclear what, if any, disclosed structure corresponds to the recited function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 22-32 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 21.
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)(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 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 5,529,245).
Regarding claim 38, Brown teaches a plural component applicator (10) comprising:
a nozzle (24) configured to generate a mixture of a first component and a second component (fig. 8), the nozzle comprising: a first component inlet (122) configured to receive a flow of the first component (fig. 8); a second component inlet (126) configured to receive a flow of the second component (fig. 8); and an air inlet (124) configured to receive a flow of supplied air (fig. 8); and a nozzle outlet (118) configured to output the mixture (fig. 8);
a nozzle interface (16) configured to removably receive the nozzle (col. 5, ln. 6-9; fig. 2), the nozzle interface comprising: a first component orifice (123) configured to receive the first component inlet therein such that the first component inlet is face sealed to the nozzle interface (fig. 7); an air orifice (174) configured to receive the air inlet therein such that the air inlet is face sealed to the nozzle interface (fig. 5); and a second component orifice configured to receive the second component inlet therein such that the second component inlet is face sealed to the nozzle interface (col. 6, ln. 23-25); and
a valve (30) actuatable to control flow of the first component, the supplied air, and the second component to the nozzle (col. 5, ln. 26-27; col. 7, ln. 25-29).
Regarding claim 39, Brown teaches the plural component applicator of claim 38, and further wherein each inlet, of the first component inlet, the air inlet, and the second component inlet, comprises a cylindrical projection having a distal end configured to engage a surface of the nozzle interface to form a face seal (figs. 2, 7).
Regarding claim 40, Brown discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 38, and further comprising a collar (22) configured to rotate relative to the nozzle interface (col. 6, ln. 12-16), wherein, when the collar is rotated in a first direction, the collar exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction toward the valve (see fig. 1), and when the collar is rotated in a second direction, the collar exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction away from the valve (col. 8, ln. 56-58).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruch (US 5,595,346) in view of Murray et al. (US 2006/0208000).
Regarding claim 21, Haruch discloses a plural component applicator (85) comprising:
a nozzle (89/100) configured to receive a first component, a second component (fig. 6 – “air” and “liquid”), and to generate a mixture of the first component and the second component (col. 8, ln. 14-19), the nozzle comprising a nozzle outlet (102) configured to output the mixture (fig. 6);
a nozzle interface (86) configured to removably receive the nozzle (figs. 6, 7), the nozzle interface comprising an alignment channel (91) configured to receive a protrusion (90) of the nozzle that aligns the nozzle in the nozzle interface (fig. 6);
a rotatable nozzle securing component (105) configured to rotate relative to the nozzle interface and to the nozzle between a first position and a second position (col. 9, ln. 27-31 and col. 8, ln. 58-60 - “allow the elongated discharge orifice 102 of the spray tip to be indexed at 45 degree intervals with respect to the cap”), wherein in the first position, the rotatable nozzle securing component allows insertion of the protrusion into the alignment channel (col. 9, ln. 21-24), and in the second position, the rotatable nozzle securing component retains the protrusion in the alignment channel (col. 9, ln. 38-43).
Haruch does not disclose a valve actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle.
Murray teaches a plural component applicator (10) comprising a nozzle (20) configured to receive a first component and a second component (fig. 4), and a valve (100/102/104) actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle (par. 37, 38).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plural component applicator of Haruch to further include a valve actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle, as taught by Murray, since this would allow a user to control the flow of the first and second components to the nozzle.
Regarding claim 22, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the protrusion of the nozzle comprises a plurality of radially extending protrusions. Regarding the limitation to the “protrusion”, it is noted that this is not interpreted to be a positively recited feature in claim 1 since it is used within the context of a functional limitation to the alignment channel of the nozzle interface. Therefore, it is interpreted to further limit the claimed invention only insofar as it further limits the “alignment channel” to being capable of receiving a protrusion that further comprises a plurality of radially extending protrusions. The alignment channel of Haruch is configured to receive “a plurality of radially extending protrusions” since it is a “bore” (col. 7, ln. 65) that is open and able to receive other features (figs. 6, 10).
Regarding claim 23, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 22, and wherein the plurality of radially extending protrusions comprise :a first radially extending protrusion extending from a first side of the nozzle, and a second radially extending protrusion extending from a second side of the nozzle. See discussion regarding claim 22. The further recited limitations to the protrusion do not preclude the alignment channel of Haruch from receiving the protrusion.
Regarding claim 24, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 22, and wherein the plurality of radially extending protrusions comprises a plurality of radially extending pins. See discussion regarding claim 22. The further recited limitations to the protrusion do not preclude the alignment channel of Haruch from receiving the protrusion.
Regarding claim 25, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the rotatable nozzle securing component comprises a collar (105) coupled to the nozzle interface (fig. 6), rotatable about the nozzle interface, between the first position and the second position (col. 9, ln. 27-29), and comprising a channel that, in the first position, defines a space for the protrusion of the nozzle (col. 8, ln. 44-45; fig. 6,7).
Regarding claim 26, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the rotatable nozzle securing component comprises a sloped channel (112 is a cam, see col. 9, ln. 31-43).
Regarding claim 27, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 26, and further wherein, when the rotatable nozzle securing component is rotated in a first direction, the sloped channel exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction toward the valve (col. 9, ln. 31-43).
Regarding claim 28, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 27, and further wherein, when the rotatable nozzle securing component is rotated in a second direction, the sloped channel exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction away from the valve (col. 9, ln. 64-66).
Regarding claim 29, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 28, and further wherein the rotatable nozzle securing component is configured to rotate along a plane that is perpendicular to the nozzle outlet (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 30, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 29, and further wherein the sloped channel is formed by a pair of walls spaced apart to form a gap (fig. 7 – two walls 112 are shown, and a gap is formed in between), therebetween, configured to receive the protrusion, wherein each wall, of the pair of walls, is oriented at an angle relative to the plane (col. 9, ln. 31-33; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 31, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the nozzle comprises: a first component inlet (86) configured to receive the first component (fig. 6); a second component inlet (87) configured to receive the second component (fig. 6); and a maze disposed between the nozzle outlet, the first component inlet and the second component inlet (fig. 6 – the flow paths between each respective inlet and the outlet has multiple turns, contractions, expansions, etc.).
Regarding claim 32, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 31, and further wherein the maze is configured to receive and mix the first component and the second component by directing flow of the first component and the second component in a first direction then directing flow of the first component and the second component in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, before the first component and the second component are expelled through the nozzle outlet (fig. 6 – liquid is first directed down at the inlet and then a portion is directed upwardly at the throat 95; air is first directed up at the inlet and then a portion is directed down at injection port 98; then the air/liquid mixture is expelled through outlet 102).
Regarding claim 33, Haruch discloses a plural component applicator (85) comprising:
a nozzle (89/100) configured to receive a first component and a second component (fig. 6 – “air” and “liquid”), and to generate a mixture of the first component and the second component (col. 8, ln. 14-19), the nozzle comprising a nozzle outlet (102) configured to output the mixture (fig. 6);
a nozzle interface (86) configured to removably receive the nozzle (figs. 6, 7); and
a collar (105) configured to rotate relative to the nozzle interface (col. 9, ln. 27-31) and to the nozzle (col. 8, ln. 58-60 - “allow the elongated discharge orifice 102 of the spray tip to be indexed at 45 degree intervals with respect to the cap”), wherein, when the collar is rotated in a first direction, the collar exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction toward the nozzle interface (col. 9, ln. 40-46), and when the collar is rotated in a second direction, the collar exerts a force on the nozzle in a direction away from the nozzle interface (col. 9, ln. 64-66).
Haruch does not disclose a valve actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle, and wherein rotating the collar a first direction exerts a force in the direction of the valve and rotating the collar in the second direction exerts a force in the direction away from the nozzle.
Murray teaches a plural component applicator (10) comprising a nozzle (20) configured to receive a first component and a second component (fig. 4), and a valve (100/102/104) actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle (par. 37, 38), and further wherein the valve is arranged in the spray applicator opposite a nozzle interface (96, see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plural component applicator of Haruch to further include a valve actuatable to control flow of the first component and the second component to the nozzle and wherein rotating the collar a first direction exerts a force in the direction of the valve and rotating the collar in the second direction exerts a force in the direction away from the nozzle., as taught by Murray, since this would allow a user to control the flow of the first and second components to the nozzle.
Regarding claim 34, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 22, and further wherein the collar is configured to rotate along a plane that is perpendicular to the nozzle outlet (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 35, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 34, and wherein the collar comprises a channel that is sloped relative to the plane (112 is a cam, see col. 9, ln. 31-43) and configured to receive a portion (111) of the nozzle (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 36, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 33, and further wherein the collar is rotatable between a first position (fig. 9) and a second position (fig. 8), wherein in the first position, the collar allows insertion of the nozzle into the nozzle interface (col. 9, ln. 21-26), and in the second position, the collar retains the nozzle in the nozzle interface (col. 9, ln. 40-43).
Regarding claim 37, Haruch in view of Murray discloses the plural component applicator described regarding claim 33, and further wherein the nozzle comprises: a first component inlet (86) configured to receive the first component (fig. 6); a second component inlet (87) configured to receive the second component (fig. 6); and a maze disposed between the nozzle outlet, the first component inlet and the second component inlet (fig. 6 – the flow paths between each respective inlet and the outlet has multiple turns, contractions, expansions, etc.), wherein the maze is configured to receive and mix the first component and the second component by directing flow of the first component and the second component in a first direction then directing flow of the first component and the second component in a plurality of different directions before the first component and the second component are expelled through the nozzle outlet (fig. 6 – liquid is first directed down at the inlet and then a portion is directed upwardly at the throat 95; air is first directed up at the inlet and then a portion is directed down at injection port 98; then the air/liquid mixture is expelled through outlet 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the 112(f) interpretation of the term “nozzle securing component” because one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood this term to have “definite meaning as the name for structure”. But Applicant has not provided any evidence to support this assertion; therefore, this argument is not found persuasive and the claim interpretation under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claim 21 and 33 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of Haruch being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Haruch, in view of Murray, is interpreted to render obvious each and every limitation of amended claims 21 and 33, as explained in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights