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 July 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 29th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 20170081165 A1) in view of Gartmann et al. (US 20130021869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bates discloses a method for reducing turbulence, buildup, or both (Paragraph 0011) in a sprayer (100, Figs. 1-2), the method comprising:
assembling a sprayer (100, Figs. 1-2) having a mixing region (152, Figs. 5-6B) with an inlet (112, Figs. 3-5, 7) and an outlet (136, Figs. 3-5);
introducing a distribution medium (“diluent”, Paragraphs 0085-0086) into the mixing region (152, Figs. 5-6B) via the inlet (112, fluid moves from inlet port 112 to the mixing chamber 152 through acceleration caused from flow passage 132, Figs. 3-5, 7, Paragraph 0092);
mixing the distribution medium (“diluent”, Paragraph 0085) with a solution (“concentrate”, Paragraphs 0085-0086) within the mixing region (152, Figs. 3-5, 7), thereby forming a mixture (chemical concentrate is drawn from container 108 through concentrate receiving assembly 174 that directs and regulates concentrate to mixing chamber 152, which is then mixed with diluent to create a mixture, Paragraphs 0085, 0093;
driving the mixture through the outlet (mixture of diluent and concentrate is directed toward outlet port 136, Paragraph 0094), wherein the inlet (112, Figs. 3-5, 7) and/or the one or more wings generate a predetermined movement of the distribution medium, the solution, the mixture, or any combination thereof within the mixing region (152, diluent travels from inlet port 112 through attachment 102 toward mixing chamber 152 and out of outlet port 118, Figs. 3-5, 7, Paragraphs 0085, 0092).
However, Bates does not disclose one or more wings disposed within the mixing region and adjacent to the inlet.
Gartmann teaches one or more wings (123, Fig. 2) disposed within the mixing region (122, shown in Fig. 2) and adjacent (interpreting as nearby, Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to the inlet (112, shown in Fig. 2).
Bates and Gartmann are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spraying units. 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 one or more wings taught in Gartmann’s method to Bates’ method, to have the motivation to provide a guide element for conveying components through a sprayer in the direction of the outlet (Gartmann, Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 2, Bates, as modified by Gartmann, discloses the method of claim 1. Gartmann teaches wherein, for each wing of the one or more wings (123, Fig. 2) has a leading edge (interpreting as the foremost edge of an airfoil, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, annotated in Fig. 2) and a trailing edge (interpreting as the rearmost edge of an object that moves and especially of an airfoil, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, annotated in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bates, as modified by Gartmann, discloses the method of claim 2. Gartmann teaches wherein, for each wing of the one or more wings (123, Fig. 2), the leading edge (annotated in Fig. 2) comprises a chamfer (interpreting as a groove, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, shown in Fig. 2) and the trailing edge (annotated in Fig. 2) has a concave curvature (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Bates, as modified by Gartmann, discloses the method of claim 1. Bates discloses a pressure differential between the mixing region (152, Figs. 3-5, 7) and an environment drives the mixture through the outlet (136, decrease in pressure, or a pressure differential, at the inlet to the mixing chamber causes concentrate to be drawn from container 108, through the valve assembly 408, the inlet assembly 176, and the valve assembly 178 and into the mixing chamber 152, to allow the concentrate to mix with the diluent to flow out of the flow passage outlet 136, Figs. 3-5, Paragraph 0127).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights