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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 10, 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 closure part in claim 18; and
the stop sheet in claim 19 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.
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:
“spraying equipment” in line 1 of claim 11, where the “equipment” is the placeholder and “spraying” is the functional language; and
“connection portion” in line 2 of claim 17, where the “portion” is the placeholder and “connection” is the functional language. Same interpretation applies to all pending claims.
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.
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 11-15 and 17-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the spiral wedge elements" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is unsure if the “spiral wedge elements" in line 12 is or is not the “spiral wedge elements" from the "plurality of spiral wedge elements" recited in line 9 of claim 1 or additional “spiral wedge elements" are required in addition to the "plurality of spiral wedge elements" recited in line 9 of claim 1? Furthermore, the Examiner is unsure if the “spiral wedge elements" in line 12 is all or part (some or subset) of the “spiral wedge elements" from the "plurality of spiral wedge elements" recited in line 9 of claim 1. Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the spiral wedge grooves" in line 12. Same rejection applies to all pending claims
In claim 12, lines 1-2, the recitation “four spiral wedge elements” appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of spiral wedge elements” recited in lines 1-2. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations in claim 12 will be interpreted as “wherein the plurality of spiral wedge elements comprises four spiral wedge elements that are uniformly arranged on the cover.” Similar rejection applies to claim 20.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the spiral wedge groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are more that one “spiral wedge groove” in the claim, it is unclear which particular “spiral wedge groove” is referred by the Applicant. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerson et al. (US11040360. Gerson hereinafter).
With respect to claim 11, Gerson discloses a liquid supply device (Figs. 1-12) for spraying equipment (spray gun. Not shown), comprising: a cover (200) having a fluid outlet (230), wherein the fluid outlet is configured to (capable of) connect the cover to the spraying equipment (via 240. Fig. 2); an inner liner (130) having a flange (outer rim) , wherein the inner liner collapses when fluid contained within the inner liner is drawn from the liquid supply device; and, a rigid outer cup (110, 120) having an open end (accommodating 130), wherein the cover extends over the open end and the inner liner is received in the rigid outer cup (Fig. 7), the cover is adapted to both the rigid outer cup and the inner liner; wherein a plurality of spiral wedge elements (270) is uniformly arranged on an outer edge of the cover (Fig. 3); a plurality of spiral wedge grooves (in between 1630) is uniformly arranged on an upper edge of an inner wall of the rigid outer cup (Fig. 9A-C); the spiral wedge elements are adapted to the spiral wedge grooves in one-to-one correspondence (Col. 6, lines 14-16); and when the spiral wedge elements are screwed into the spiral wedge grooves, the cover is connected to the rigid outer cup.
With respect to claim 12, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein four spiral wedge elements are uniformly arranged on the cover (Fig. 12).
With respect to claim 13, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein the spiral wedge groove is formed by a unidirectional protrusion (of 1630. same configuration as the Applicant’s invention), the unidirectional protrusion protrudes in the direction of (toward) a center of a circle of the open end of the rigid outer cup; an upper surface of the unidirectional protrusion is located in the same plane as an upper surface of the upper edge of the inner wall of the rigid outer cup (See Fig. 9C with additional annotations below), and a lower surface of the unidirectional protrusion is a spiral surface, the lower surface is oriented towards a bottom of the rigid outer cup (Fig. 9C).
With respect to claim 14, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein the spiral wedge elements and spiral wedge grooves are only in the form of one part of one turn of corresponding external and internal threads, respectively (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 15, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein a corresponding place of the inner wall of the rigid outer cup below the plurality of spiral wedge grooves is provided with a placing ring surface (pointed by “1620” in Fig. 9A), and the placing ring surface is used for placing the flange of the inner liner (Fig. 10B).
With respect to claim 17, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein the fluid outlet is provided with a connection portion (230), the connection portion is adapted to a connection method of the spraying equipment.
With respect to claim 18, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein a closure part (275) matching with an opening of the inner liner is provided at a corresponding place of the cover (Fig. 10B).
With respect to claim 20, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 12, wherein the four spiral wedge elements are identical (Fig. 12).
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.
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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerson.
With respect to claim 19, Gerson discloses the liquid supply device for spraying equipment according to claim 11, wherein a stop sheet (pointed by “1620” in Fig. 9A) is provided at a tail (lower) end of the spiral wedge groove; and a cross section of the spiral wedge element is a trapezoidal shape or a triangular shape (Fig. 9C).
Gerson fails to specifically disclose the length of the spiral wedge element is between 1-2 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the spiral wedge element is between 1-2 cm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a liquid supply device: Yang, Joseph et al., Malin, Janssen et al., Valpey, III et al., Bouic et al., Kosmyna et al., Pendleton et al., Joseph et al., O'Brien, Kosmyna et al. and Bouic et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights