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 of Invention Group I in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 22, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “BLDC fan motor” in line 2 should read -- BLDC (brushless DC) fan motor.-- Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14, 16 and 17 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 “high” in line 2 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. The minimum volume needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Page 1, lines 16-21 and Page 2, lines 7-9 discloses examples of high volume low pressure (HVLP) system. However, according to MPEP 2111.01, claim terms are generally given their ordinary meaning, but applicants may act as their own lexicographer by providing an explicit, clear, and intentional special definition within the specification. This definition overrides the standard meaning, provided it is supported by the disclosure as filed. In the instant case, the aforementioned examples fail to provide explicit, clear, and intentional special definition within the specification. Clarification is respectfully requested. Similar rejection applies to the term “low,” in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "… the HVLP paint-spray device switched on in an interrupted spraying procedure the fan motor is actively energized at least temporarily at a reduced power in comparison with the spraying procedure…" in lines 6-8. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear if the interrupted spraying procedure or the fan motor is at a reduced power in comparison with the spraying procedure. Furthermore, the “interrupted spraying procedure” appears to be a part/portion/subset of the “spraying procedure,” it is unclear how the interrupted spraying procedure or the fan motor can at least temporarily at a reduced power in comparison with the spraying procedure? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the switch or button and the trigger are capable of being actuated mechanically decoupled from one another" in lines 1-3. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. The Examiner understands the terms “actuated mechanically” and “decoupled from one another" separately. However, the combined action/function required to meet the terms “actuated mechanically decoupled from one another" is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The term “slight” in line 7 of claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slight” 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. The magnitude or degree of force needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested. Similar rejection applies to the term “stronger,” in line 13 of claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "in an event of a slight activation of the trigger the fan motor is activated, is accelerated to an idling speed below a working speed, or to a working speed, and a paint valve is kept closed, there being provision that the idling speed is such that only a maximally desired paint pressure is built up ahead of the paint valve" in lines 7-12. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear how both the trigger and the fan motor is (are?) activated, (are?) is accelerated to an idling speed below a working speed…? Furthermore, in English, "or" is a conjunction used to present choices, alternatives, or possibilities, indicating that only one or some of them apply (e.g., "tea or coffee"). It connects words, phrases, and clauses, and is also used in negative sentences to list options. However, it is unclear if the conjunction “or” offers alternative to two conditions (“to an idling speed below a working speed” or “to a working speed”) or three conditions (“is activated,” “is accelerated to an idling speed below a working speed” or “to a working speed”)? Clarification is respectfully requested. Similar rejection applies to lines 13-18 of claim 9.
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) 1, 2 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svendsen et al. (EP3207997. Svendsen hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Svendsen discloses a method (Figs. 1-5) for (capable of) controlling a fan (51) on a high volume low pressure (HVLP) paint-spray device (2), wherein the HVLP paint-spray device includes a trigger (22), for triggering a spraying procedure (Fig. 5), a paint feed (6), the fan with a fan motor (55), and also control electronics (56) for the fan, wherein the control electronics include a power control (78, 82) for the fan motor, and with the HVLP paint-spray device switched on in an interrupted spraying procedure (operating at an unsustainable level…depends on the degree of restriction in the inlet 53, and the degree of restrictions downstream from the blower 51… [0016], [0026] and [0030]) the fan motor is actively energized at least temporarily at a reduced power in comparison with the spraying procedure (when the pressure is at 68.9 kPa), wherein the method comprises:
activating, by at least one switch or button (see "on/off switch on the housing 50" in paragraph [0028]), the control electronics for operation ([0028]) of the motor, and
controlling, by at least the trigger, emission of paint.
With respect to claim 2, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising:
providing a reduction time-window (time setting can be adjusted to shorter or longer durations (e.g., by a user input control, which can be a dial or button interface)… [0030]) comprising a latency period that has to elapse after the interrupting of the spraying procedure before a reduction of the power of the fan motor occurs ([0030]).
With respect to claim 5, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the switch or button and the trigger are capable of being actuated (depressed) mechanically decoupled from one another (by removing hose 10).
With respect to claim 6, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising providing at least one of:
a standby-time until the fan motor is switched to a state of rest or
an idling-time at reduced fan power until the fan motor is switched to a state of rest ([0026]).
With respect to claim 7, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the switching of the HVLP paint-spray device into an operating state brings about an energizing of the fan motor at an idling mode at reduced power ([0028]).
With respect to claim 8, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an energy supply is provided via an interchangeable battery ([0025]).
With respect to claim 9, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising:
after the activation (turn ON) of the control electronics for the fan motor,
detecting activation of an at least two-stage switch (the first threshold, the second threshold, or a third threshold. [0035]) assigned to the trigger, wherein
in an event of a slight activation of the trigger the fan motor is activated, is accelerated to an idling speed below a working speed, or to a working speed, and a paint valve (30, 68) is kept closed, there being provision that the idling speed is such that only a maximally desired paint pressure is built up ahead of the paint valve (above the second threshold. [0030]- [0035]), and
in an event of a stronger actuation of the trigger, by which the paint valve is also opened, the fan motor is accelerated to a working speed above the idling speed or is kept at the working speed already attained, there being provision that the working speed is such that the HVLP paint-spray device is operated in a designated spraying mode (below the first or third thresholds).
With respect to claim 10, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control electronics for the fan motor are activated by the switch or by the button, and/or a speed provided for a working speed is specified to the control electronics by a manually operable setting device, this speed either being set by means of the setting device to be continuously variable or being set to have multiple stages, the manually operable setting device comprising a rotary switch (see the switch and rotary switch on the fan housing in figure 1. [0016], [0022], [0024], [0033] and [0036]).
With respect to claim 11, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein after an actuation of the trigger there is provision that the activation of the fan motor is maintained only for a period of time determined by a disconnecting device, unless the trigger or the manually operable setting device is actuated again ([0033]).
With respect to claim 12, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the disconnecting device includes a timer and at least one event sensor, there being provision that a running-time of the timer is interrupted by virtue of at least one event detected by the at least one event sensor, so that the fan motor is switched off prior to expiration of the running-time ([0031]).
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) 3, 4, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen.
With respect to claim 3, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, except for wherein the reduction time-window is between 10 milliseconds (ms) and 2 seconds(s).
However, Svendsen explicitly mentions the desired adjustability of the reduction period in paragraph (“…This time setting can be adjusted to shorter or longer durations (e.g., by a user input control, which can be a dial or button interface) to best suit the user's preferences and application of the unit.” [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the reduction time-window is between 10 milliseconds (ms) and 2 seconds(s), 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.
With respect to claim 4, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and reducing the power of the fan only to such an extent that a working pressure for the HVLP paint-spray device is capable of being set by increasing the fan power by the control electronics within an intensification time-window comprising an acceleration-time (operating at an unsustainable level…depends on the degree of restriction in the inlet 53, and the degree of restrictions downstream from the blower 51… [0016], [0026] and [0030]).
Svendsen fails to disclose wherein the intensification time-window between reduced power and working power being between 50 milliseconds (ms) and 500 milliseconds (ms).
However, Svendsen explicitly mentions the desired adjustability of the reduction period in paragraph (“…This time setting can be adjusted to shorter or longer durations (e.g., by a user input control, which can be a dial or button interface) to best suit the user's preferences and application of the unit.” [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the intensification time-window between reduced power and working power being between 50 milliseconds (ms) and 500 milliseconds (ms), 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.
With respect to claim 13, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, except for wherein the fan motor is operated as a sensorless BLDC fan motor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sensorless brushless DC fan motor because these devices are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a sensorless brushless DC fan motor because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a sensorless brushless DC fan motor because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent motor. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, provide rotational power to the pump. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent motor would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, except for wherein the reduction time-window is between 50 ms and 1 s (claim 16) and wherein the reduction time-window is between 50 ms and 500 ms (claim 17).
However, Svendsen explicitly mentions the desired adjustability of the reduction period in paragraph (“…This time setting can be adjusted to shorter or longer durations (e.g., by a user input control, which can be a dial or button interface) to best suit the user's preferences and application of the unit.” [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the reduction time-window is between 50 ms and 1 s (claim 16) and the reduction time-window is between 50 ms and 500 ms (claim 17), 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen in view of Kaneko et al. (US20010040192. Kaneko hereinafter).
Alternatively, with respect to claim 9, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising:
after the activation (turn ON) of the control electronics for the fan motor,
detecting activation of the switch assigned to the trigger, wherein
in an event of a slight activation of the trigger the fan motor is activated, is accelerated to an idling speed below a working speed, or to a working speed, and a paint valve (30, 68) is kept closed, there being provision that the idling speed is such that only a maximally desired paint pressure is built up ahead of the paint valve (above the second threshold. [0030]- [0035]), and
in an event of a stronger actuation of the trigger, by which the paint valve is also opened, the fan motor is accelerated to a working speed above the idling speed or is kept at the working speed already attained, there being provision that the working speed is such that the HVLP paint-spray device is operated in a designated spraying mode (below the first or third thresholds).
Svendsen fails to disclose detecting activation of an at least two-stage switch assigned to the trigger.
However, Kaneko teaches a sprayer (Figs. 1-4) comprising a trigger (7) to activate spraying of the fluid, and including detecting activation of an at least two-stage switch assigned to the trigger (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of two spraying modes sprayer, as taught by Kaneko, to Svendsen’s trigger, in order to provide small pattern and large pattern spray with simple components ([0011], [0044], [0049] and [0050]).
With respect to claim 14, Svendsen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11 except for wherein the HVLP paint-spray device is operated in a manner depending on whether a selector switch is in a first position or is in a second position.
However, Kaneko teaches a sprayer (Figs. 1-4) comprising a trigger (7) to activate spraying of the fluid, and paint-spray device is operated in a manner depending on whether a selector switch is in a first position (small pattern) or is in a second position (large pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of two spraying modes sprayer, as taught by Kaneko, to Svendsen’s trigger, in order to provide small pattern and large pattern spray with simple components ([0011], [0044], [0049] and [0050]).
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 method for controlling a paint-spray device: Croskey et al., De Fusco, Silvern, Geberth, Mehlhorn, Norton, Tran.
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 February 10, 2026