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 .
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 pneumatic accessories in claim 9, ln. 11 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“interior” should be added before “passage” in ln. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“outlet hex” should be added before “fitting” in ln. 5.
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 1-8 and 9-16 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 "said passage" in ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a passage” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said passage" in ln. 4. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the passage is referring to the interior passage previously recited in the claim, or the applicant is introducing a new and different passage. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the interior passage previously recited in the claim. The examiner recommends revising “said passage” to “said interior passage” to ensure consistency of terms.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a second ferrule” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how there can be a second ferrule when there is no first ferrule previously recited in the claim, and it is unclear whether there is a first ferrule or not. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there is a first ferrule separate from the second ferrule. The examiner recommends adding a first ferrule limitation to this claim or amend claim 6 to be dependent from claim 4, which recites a first ferrule.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said fitting" in ln. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a fitting” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said fitting" in ln. 5. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the fitting is referring to the outlet hex fitting previously recited in the claim or if the applicant is introducing a new and different fitting. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the outlet hex fitting previously recited in the claim. The examiner recommends revising “said fitting” to “said outlet hex fitting” to ensure consistency of terms.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a conventional pneumatic extension" in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the conventional pneumatic extension is referring to the extension previously recited in claim 1 or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the extension previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said second end" in ln. 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a second end” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said second end" in ln. 15. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if said second end is referring to the second end configurable for threadable connection to pneumatic accessories previously recited in the claim or the second end of the extension tube body previously recited in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the second end of the extension tube body previously recited in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said passage" in ln. 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a passage” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said passage" in ln. 19. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the passage is referring to the interior passage previously recited in the claim, or if the applicant is introducing a new and different passage. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the interior passage previously recited in the claim. The examiner recommends revising “said passage” to “said interior passage” to ensure consistency of terms.
Claims 10-13 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a second ferrule” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how there can be a second ferrule when there is no first ferrule previously recited in the claim, and it is unclear whether there is a first ferrule or not. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there is a first ferrule separate from the second ferrule. The examiner recommends adding a first ferrule limitation to this claim or amend claim 6 to be dependent from claim 12, which recites a first ferrule.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said fitting" in ln. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a fitting” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said fitting" in ln. 5. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the fitting is referring to the outlet hex fitting previously recited in the claim, or if the applicant is introducing a new and different fitting. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the outlet hex fitting previously recited in the claim. The examiner recommends revising “said fitting” to “said outlet hex fitting” to ensure consistency of terms.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a conventional pneumatic extension" in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the conventional pneumatic extension is referring to the flexible extension previously recited in claim 9, the extension tube body previously recited in claim 9, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the flexible extension previously recited in 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646).
With respect to claim 1, McCauley discloses an extension (18, Figs. 1-3) for a pneumatic blow gun (10, Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) defining an interior passage (passage within sheath 30, shown in Figs. 4, 6) and having a first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, shown in Figs. 4-6) and a second end (left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6), said body (30, Figs. 4-6) made of wound (interpreting as move in or take a twisting or spiral course, Oxford Dictionary) metal (sheath 30 is a helically constructed bendable metal, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25);
a resilient liner (20, Figs. 5-6) disposed in said passage (passage within sheath 30, shown in Fig. 6) and extending from said first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, Figs. 4-6) to said second end (left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6);
said first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, Figs. 4-6) configured for attachment to a barrel (opening of spray gun 10 connecting to bendable link 18, shown in Figs. 1-3) of the pneumatic blow gun (10, spray gun coupling 22 connecting to right end of sheath 30 connects flexible line 20 of sheath 30 to the spray gun 10, Figs. 1-3, Col. 3, Ln. 8-15); and
said tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) being bendable per user manipulation (sheath 30 is bendable to hold the spray head in a user’s desired orientation, Col. 2, Ln. 8-14, 16-38), and being configured for retaining a user-manipulated orientation (conduit of sheath 30 is both light-weight and resilient to create effective bending that allows the flexible line to be bent to a new configuration and ensures it stays that way, forgetting its prior shape, Col. 3, Ln. 16-38).
With respect to claim 2, McCauley discloses the extension of claim 1. McCauley further discloses said tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) is covered with a resilient covering (sheath 30 is a helically constructed bendable metal that is resistant, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25).
Regarding claim 4, McCauley discloses the extension of claim 1. McCauley further discloses said first end (22, right end of sheath 30, Figs. 4-6) is provided with a first ferrule (32 on the right end of sheath 30, shown in Figs. 5-6) surrounding said first end (22, right end of sheath 30, ferrules 32 are crimped or clinched down around the ferrule 28 connecting to the coupling 22, Figs. 4-6, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25), and accommodating a threaded receptacle (22, Figs. 5-6) with a nipple (shown in Figs. 5-6) for threadably engaging the barrel (opening of spray gun 10 connecting to bendable link 18, shown in Figs. 1-3) of the pneumatic blow gun (10, spray gun coupling 22 connects flexible line 20 of sheath 30 to the spray gun 10, and coupling has threaded fittings, Figs. 1-3, Col. 3, Ln. 8-25, Claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) in view of Danielson et al. (US 20030201347 A1).
In regards to claim 3, McCauley discloses the extension of claim 1. However, McCauley does not disclose said tube body is made of carbon spring steel. Danielson teaches an extension (16, Figs. 1-3) for a pneumatic blow gun (10, Figs. 1-3) comprising said tube body (external body of flexible hose 16, shown in Figs. 1-3) is made of carbon spring steel (flexible hose 16 is made of a steel braided rubber hose, Paragraph 0034).
McCauley and Danielson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extensions for pneumatic blow guns. 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 tube body taught in Danielson’s extension to McCauley’s extension, to have said tube body is made of carbon spring steel. Doing so allows the extension to withstand high pressures (Danielson, Paragraph 0034).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) in view of Crenshaw (US 20210212309 A1).
Regarding claim 5, McCauley discloses the extension of claim 4. However, McCauley does not disclose said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. Crenshaw teaches said nipple (bottom end of barb 108, shown in Fig. 5) is a component of a barb fitting (108, Fig. 14) which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting (102, inlet 102 could include a threaded male or female coupler, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0058).
McCauley and Crenshaw are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extensions for pneumatic blow guns. 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 barb fitting taught in Crenshaw to McCauley’s extension, to have said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. The barb fitting taught in Crenshaw would be added to the nipple disclosed in McCauley so that said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. Doing so allows for secure attachment of the extension (Crenshaw, Paragraph 0058).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) in view of Smith et al. (US Patent 4,325,513) and Enriquez (US Patent 10,639,658).
With respect to claim 6, McCauley discloses the extension of claim 1. McCauley further discloses said second end (left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6) is encompassed by a second ferrule (32, ferrules 32 are crimped or clinched down around the ferrule 28 connecting to the coupling 24, Figs. 4-6, Col. 3, Ln. Ln. 8-15). However, McCauley does not disclose said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting as claimed. Smith teaches a brass bushing (148, Teflon bushing is used as an example, but Smith states that the invention can be used in a number of differently appearing embodiments not limited to the exact embodiment shown, so brass can be used as for the bushing, Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 47-59) inserted into said liner (94, 96, shown in Fig. 3), and a compression ring (120, spring 120 has a ring cross-section shape, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 7, Ln. 60-63) pressing an outlet hex fitting (150, shown in Fig. 3) around said brass bushing (150, shown in Fig. 3).
McCauley and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 brass bushing, the compression ring, and the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith to McCauley’s extension, to have said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing. The brass bushing taught in Smith would be added to into the liner disclosed in McCauley and the compression ring and the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith would be added to the second ferrule disclosed in McCauley so that said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing. Doing so allows for the extension to be adaptable to handle different pressures and systems (Smith, Col. 2, Ln. 33-45).
However, McCauley and Smith do not teach said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting as claimed. Enriquez teaches a retainer nut (430, 432, Fig. 25).
McCauley, Smith, and Enriquez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 retainer nut taught in Enriquez to McCauley’s extension, as modified by Smith above, to have said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting. The retainer nut taught in Enriquez would be added to the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith added to the second ferrule disclosed in McCauley so that said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting. Doing so assists the user in tightening parts of the extension together (Enriquez, Col. 19, Ln. 1-17).
In regards to claim 7, McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez, discloses the extension of claim 6. Enriquez further teaches said retainer nut (430, 432, Fig. 25) is externally threaded (shown in Fig. 25, Col. 19, Ln. 1-17). McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez above regarding claims 6-7, would result in said retainer nut is externally threaded for engaging said outlet hex fitting and retaining said compression ring in place.
In regards to claim 8, McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez, discloses the extension of claim 6. Smith further teaches said outlet hex fitting (150, Fig. 3) is threaded (rear end of gas passage 112 is threaded to receive the hex head bolt 150 through its threads, Col. 9, Ln. 5-23). McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez above regarding claims 6 and 8, would result in said outlet hex fitting is threaded to threadably engage a conventional pneumatic extension.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20210394208 A1) in view of McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses a combination pneumatic blow gun and flexible extension (entire structure, Fig. 1A), comprising:
a pneumatic blow gun (10, Fig. 1A) having a body (12, Fig. 1A) with a handle (26, Fig. 1A) and a barrel (20, Fig. 1A), and defining an internal air passageway (58, Fig. 3B);
a trigger (14, Fig. 1A) connected to said body (12, shown in Fig. 1A) and configured for regulating the flow of compressed air in said internal air passageway (58, user manipulates trigger 14 to cause air valve to open and allow compressed air to flow through inlet bore 58 to air valve bore 50, Fig. 3B, Paragraphs 0052, 0064);
an inlet (upstream end of inlet bore 58 connecting to air fitting 38, shown in Fig. 3B) in said handle (26, shown in Fig. 3B);
an outlet (16, Fig. 1A) at an end (end of collar 20 connecting to air cap 16, Fig. 1A) of said barrel (20, shown in Fig. 1A) for dispensing pressurized air as controlled by said trigger (14, user manipulates trigger 14 to cause air valve to open and allow compressed air to flow through inlet bore 58 to air valve bore 50 and air is emitted from air cap 16, Fig. 1A, Paragraphs 0049, 0052, 0064).
However, Wagner does not disclose said second end configured for threadable connection to pneumatic accessories, an extension tube body defining an interior passage and having a first end and a second end, said body made of wound metal, a resilient liner disposed in said passage and extending from said first end to said second end, said first end configured for attachment to said outlet of said pneumatic blow gun, and said tube body being bendable per user manipulation, and being configured for retaining a user-manipulated orientation. McCauley teaches a combination pneumatic blow gun and flexible extension (entire structure, Figs. 1-3) comprising said second end (interpreting said second end as the end of the barrel where the outlet is located, end of spray gun 10 where opening of spray gun 10 connecting to bendable link 18 is, shown in Figs. 1-3) configured for threadable connection to pneumatic accessories (there is a spray gun coupling 22 that has threads that connects to spray gun 10, Col. 3, Ln. 8-25, Claim 1);
an extension tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) defining an interior passage (passage within sheath 30, shown in Figs. 4, 6) and having a first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, shown in Figs. 4-6) and a second end (interpreting a second end as a second end of the extension tube body that is different from the second end configured for threadable connection to pneumatic accessories, left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6), said body (30, Figs. 4-6) made of wound (interpreting as move in or take a twisting or spiral course, Oxford Dictionary) metal (sheath 30 is a helically constructed bendable metal, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25);
a resilient liner (20, Figs. 5-6) disposed in said passage (passage within sheath 30, shown in Fig. 6) and extending from said first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, Figs. 4-6) to said second end (left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6);
said first end (right end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 22, Figs. 4-6) configured for attachment to said outlet (opening of spray gun 10 connecting to bendable link 18, shown in Figs. 1-3) of the pneumatic blow gun (10, spray gun coupling 22 connecting to right end of sheath 30 connects flexible line 20 of sheath 30 to the spray gun 10, Figs. 1-3, Col. 3, Ln. 8-15); and
said tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) being bendable per user manipulation (sheath 30 is bendable to hold the spray head in a user’s desired orientation, Col. 2, Ln. 8-14, 16-38), and being configured for retaining a user-manipulated orientation (conduit of sheath 30 is both light-weight and resilient to create effective bending that allows the flexible line to be bent to a new configuration and ensures it stays that way, forgetting its prior shape, Col. 3, Ln. 16-38).
Wagner and McCauley are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 second outlet and the extension tube body taught in McCauley’s combination blow gun and flexible extension to Wagner’s combination blow gun and flexible extension, to have said second end configured for threadable connection to pneumatic accessories, an extension tube body defining an interior passage and having a first end and a second end, said body made of wound metal, a resilient liner disposed in said passage and extending from said first end to said second end, said first end configured for attachment to said outlet of said pneumatic blow gun, and said tube body being bendable per user manipulation, and being configured for retaining a user-manipulated orientation. Doing so provides a system that is light-weight and will withstand repeated bending to allow the user to hold the spray gun in a desired position (McCauley, Col. 2, Ln. 8-33).
With respect to claim 10, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, discloses the combination of claim 9. McCauley further discloses said extension tube body (30, external body of bendable link 18, Figs. 1-4, 6) is covered with a resilient covering (sheath 30 is a helically constructed bendable metal that is resistant, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, discloses the combination of claim 9. McCauley further discloses said first end (22, right end of sheath 30, Figs. 4-6) is provided with a first ferrule (32 on the right end of sheath 30, shown in Figs. 5-6) surrounding said first end (22, right end of sheath 30, ferrules 32 are crimped or clinched down around the ferrule 28 connecting to the coupling 22, Figs. 4-6, Col. 3, Ln. 16-25), and accommodating a threaded receptacle (22, Figs. 5-6) with a nipple (shown in Figs. 5-6) for threadably engaging the barrel (opening of spray gun 10 connecting to bendable link 18, shown in Figs. 1-3) of the pneumatic blow gun (10, spray gun coupling 22 connects flexible line 20 of sheath 30 to the spray gun 10, and coupling has threaded fittings, Figs. 1-3, Col. 3, Ln. 8-25, Claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20210394208 A1) in view of McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Danielson et al. (US 20030201347 A1).
In regards to claim 3, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, discloses the combination of claim 9. However, Wagner and McCauley do not teach said extension tube body is made of carbon spring steel. Danielson teaches a combination pneumatic blow gun and flexible extension (10, Figs. 1-3) comprising said extension tube body (external body of flexible hose 16, shown in Figs. 1-3) is made of carbon spring steel (flexible hose 16 is made of a steel braided rubber hose, Paragraph 0034).
Wagner, McCauley, and Danielson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 extension tube body taught in Danielson’s blow gun to Wagner’s blow gun, as modified by McCauley, to have said tube body is made of carbon spring steel. Doing so allows the extension to withstand high pressures (Danielson, Paragraph 0034).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20210394208 A1) in view of McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) as applied to claims 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Crenshaw (US 20210212309 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, discloses the combination of claim 12. However, Wagner and McCauley do not teach said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. Crenshaw teaches said nipple (bottom end of barb 108, shown in Fig. 5) is a component of a barb fitting (108, Fig. 14) which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting (102, inlet 102 could include a threaded male or female coupler, Fig. 5, Paragraph 0058).
Wagner, McCauley, and Crenshaw are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extensions for pneumatic blow guns. 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 barb fitting taught in Crenshaw to Wagner’s blow gun, as modified by McCauley, to have said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. The barb fitting taught in Crenshaw would be added to the nipple disclosed in McCauley so that said nipple is a component of a barb fitting which is threadably engaged to a tube fitting configured for insertion into said liner. Doing so allows for secure attachment of the extension (Crenshaw, Paragraph 0058).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20210394208 A1) in view of McCauley (US Patent 5,263,646) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US Patent 4,325,513) and Enriquez (US Patent 10,639,658).
With respect to claim 14, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, discloses the combination of claim 9. McCauley further discloses said second end (left end of sheath 30 connecting to coupling 24, shown in Figs. 4-6) is encompassed by a second ferrule (32, ferrules 32 are crimped or clinched down around the ferrule 28 connecting to the coupling 24, Figs. 4-6, Col. 3, Ln. Ln. 8-15). However, Wagner and McCauley do not teach said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting as claimed. Smith teaches a brass bushing (148, Teflon bushing is used as an example, but Smith states that the invention can be used in a number of differently appearing embodiments not limited to the exact embodiment shown, so brass can be used as for the bushing, Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 47-59) inserted into said liner (94, 96, shown in Fig. 3), and a compression ring (120, spring 120 has a ring cross-section shape, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 7, Ln. 60-63) pressing an outlet hex fitting (150, shown in Fig. 3) around said brass bushing (150, shown in Fig. 3).
Wagner, McCauley, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 brass bushing, the compression ring, and the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith to Wagner’s blow gun, as modified by McCauley, to have said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing. The brass bushing taught in Smith would be added to into the liner disclosed in McCauley and the compression ring and the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith would be added to the second ferrule disclosed in McCauley so that said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing. Doing so allows for the extension to be adaptable to handle different pressures and systems (Smith, Col. 2, Ln. 33-45).
However, Wagner, McCauley, and Smith do not teach said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting as claimed. Enriquez teaches a retainer nut (430, 432, Fig. 25).
Wagner, McCauley, Smith, and Enriquez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pneumatic blow guns. 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 retainer nut taught in Enriquez to Wagner’s blow gun, as modified by McCauley and Smith above, to have said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting. The retainer nut taught in Enriquez would be added to the outlet hex fitting taught in Smith added to the second ferrule disclosed in McCauley so that said second end is encompassed by a second ferrule, a brass bushing inserted into said liner, and a compression ring pressing an outlet hex fitting against said second ferrule and around said brass bushing, and a retainer nut engaging said outlet hex fitting and compressing said compression ring against said fitting. Doing so assists the user in tightening parts of the extension together (Enriquez, Col. 19, Ln. 1-17).
In regards to claim 15, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, Smith, and Enriquez, discloses the combination of claim 14. Enriquez further teaches said retainer nut (430, 432, Fig. 25) is externally threaded (shown in Fig. 25, Col. 19, Ln. 1-17). McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez above regarding claims 14-15, would result in said retainer nut is externally threaded for engaging said outlet hex fitting and retaining said compression ring in place.
In regards to claim 16, Wagner, as modified by McCauley, Smith, and Enriquez, discloses the combination of claim 14. Smith further teaches said outlet hex fitting (150, Fig. 3) is threaded (rear end of gas passage 112 is threaded to receive the hex head bolt 150 through its threads, Col. 9, Ln. 5-23). McCauley, as modified by Smith and Enriquez above regarding claims 14 and 16, would result in said outlet hex fitting is threaded to threadably engage a conventional pneumatic extension.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752