DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the an brush tool” is believed to be in error for --the tool portion--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu CN 100512978 C.
In regards to Independent Claim 14, Wu teaches a powered tool (system shown for spraying car in figure 5), comprising: a removable battery pack (battery pack 20 on bottom of 10); a body (10), the body comprising a housing (outer shell of 10) and a pump housed in the housing (motor within 10 pumps fluid out of 132, page 6, 4th paragraph describing figure 5); a tool portion remote from the body (sprayer 134); and a hose connecting the body and the tool portion (hose between 134 and 10 shown in figure 5), the hose providing a fluid connection between the body and the tool portion (fluid connection from 132 to 134 via hose shown in figure 5), wherein; the removable battery pack is configured to serve as a weighted base on which the body is mounted (battery 20 is on the bottom of 10); and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the body such that the body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface (20 shown supporting 10 on flat surface in figure 5).
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 1, 2, 6, 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu 5,088,903 in view of Wu.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Tomatsu teaches an air brush (figure 8), comprising: a removable battery pack (battery pack on side of 10 as shown in figure 8 below); a sprayer body (10), the sprayer body comprising a housing (1 in figure 1) and a pump housed in the housing (pumps 7 within 1 in figure 1); an air brush tool (20), the air brush tool comprising an outlet configured to dispense an aerosolized fluid (Col. 3, ll. 31-33); and a hose connecting the sprayer body and the air brush tool (hose between 10 and 20 in figure 8). However, Tomatsu does not teach that the removable battery pack serves as a weighted base on which the sprayer body is mounted; and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface. Wu teaches a removable battery pack (20) serves as a weighted base on which a sprayer body (10) is mounted (10 mounted upon 20 as shown in figure 1); and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface (figure 5 shows 10 mounted upon 20 on a flat surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to replace the side mounted battery of Tomatsu with the bottom battery slid into grooves of a housing, as taught by Wu, in order to mount the battery to the housing in a good limited slippage relationship (Page 6, first paragraph at top of page).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Tomatsu
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches the removable battery pack is a power tool battery pack (battery pack of Tomatsu in figure 8 above is capable of powering a power tool).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface, a length of the pump in a horizontal direction is greater than a height of the pump in a vertical direction (each pump 7 is shown as longer than it is tall in figure 1, where the sprayer body is laid with the battery in contact with a horizontal surface).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches the sprayer body further comprises an actuator configured to control the pump (motor 3 controls pumps 7 through rods 6).
In regards to Independent Claim 14, Tomatsu teaches a powered tool (as shown in figure 8), comprising: a removable battery pack (battery pack in figure 8 above, Col. 9, ll. 28-31); a body (10), the body comprising a housing (1) and a pump housed in the housing (pumps 7 within housing 1 in figure 1); a tool portion (20) remote from the body (as shown in figure 8 above); and a hose connecting the body and the tool portion (hose between 10 and 20 in figure 8), the hose providing a fluid connection between the body and the tool portion (Col. 5, ll. 56-58). However, Tomatsu does not teach that the removable battery pack serves as a weighted base on which the sprayer body is mounted; and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface. Wu teaches a removable battery pack (20) serves as a weighted base on which a sprayer body (10) is mounted (10 mounted upon 20 as shown in figure 1); and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface (figure 5 shows 10 mounted upon 20 on a flat surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to replace the side mounted battery of Tomatsu with the bottom battery slid into grooves of a housing, as taught by Wu, in order to mount the battery to the housing in a good limited slippage relationship (Page 6, first paragraph at top of page).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface, a length of the pump in a horizontal direction is greater than a height of the pump in a vertical direction (each pump 7 is shown as longer than it is tall in figure 1, where the sprayer body is laid with the battery in contact with a horizontal surface).
Claims 3, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lin 4,925,105.
Regarding Dependent Claims 3, 4 and 15, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the inventions as claimed and discussed above. However, Tomatsu in view of Wu does not teach that the hose is connected to the sprayer body and air brush tool through threaded connections. Lin teaches a sprayer (figure 1) with a sprayer body (body including container 10 up to strap 50 as shown in figure 1), a hose (60), and a spraying tool (65 to 67 in figure 1), with a threaded connection between the hose and body (61, Col. 3, ll. 13-14) and between the hose and the spraying tool (652 and 621 in figure 3, Col. 3, ll. 21-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a known technique, the threaded connection of Lin, to a known device, the connection between each of the hose of Tomatsu in view of Wu and the sprayer body and air brush tool of Tomatsu in view of Wu, to yield predictable results, in order to reversibly connect the components of the air brush. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). MPEP 2143 I D.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu in view of Wu as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Stones WO 2020/070466 A1.
Regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 16, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the inventions as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches the sprayer body has a first length along a longitudinal axis of the sprayer body (length of 10 along longest direction towards hose in figure 8); wherein the removable battery pack has a second length along a longitudinal axis of the removable battery pack (length of battery pack in figure 8 above along its longest direction). However, Tomatsu in view of Wu does not teach that the battery pack is longer than the sprayer body. Stones teaches that using a larger battery for a portable pumping system will increase the weight of the system while extending the run time (Page 1, ll. 25-29). Therefore, the size of the battery is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is increasing the size of the battery will increase the run time of the system powered by the battery. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the size of the battery can be increased, was disclosed in the prior art by Stones, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a battery longer than the sprayer body of Tomatsu in view of Wu, as taught by Stones, in order to increase the run time of the device. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 7-12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu in view of Wu as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mantes 2019/0030554.
Regarding Dependent Claims 7, 8, 10 and 18, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the inventions as claimed and discussed above. However, Tomatsu in view of Wu does not teach an electrical connection between the removable battery and the air brush tool through the hose. Mantes teaches a device (1) with a sprayer body (2) and a tool (10) connected with a hose (14), with an electrical connection through the hose (paragraph [0065]) connecting the tool (switches 84 on 10) with a removable battery pack (32, figure 27, with a control circuit between the battery 32 and tool switch 84 as shown in figure 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the control system of Mantes including an electrical connection in the hose, in the air brush system of Tomatsu in view of Wu, in order to control activation of the pump of the sprayer body directly from the air brush tool (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Tomatsu in view of Wu and Mantes teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Tomatsu further teaches when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface, a length of the pump in a horizontal direction is greater than a height of the pump in a vertical direction (each pump 7 is shown as longer than it is tall in figure 1, where the sprayer body is laid with the battery in contact with a horizontal surface).
Regarding Dependent Claims 11, 12 and 19, Tomatsu in view of Wu teaches the inventions as claimed and discussed above. However, Tomatsu in view of Wu does not teach a circuit board with a controller disposed between the pump and the removable battery pack. Mantes teaches a printed circuit board (34) for controlling a motor (motor 30, paragraph [0049]) of a pump (30 coupled to drive pump 16, paragraph [0054]) between a battery and pump (34 shown between 32 and 30 driving 16 in figure 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the control circuit of Mantes between the battery and pump of Tomatsu in view of Wu, in order to control activation of the motor of the pump in response to an input from the user (paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantes in view of Wu.
In regards to Independent Claim 20, Mantes teaches a powered tool (1), comprising: a removable battery pack (pack 32 in power unit 4); a body (2, with 4 at base of 2 as shown in figure 1), the body comprising a housing (exterior of 2) and a pump (pump assembly 54) housed in the housing (as shown in figures 4 and 5); a tool portion (10) remote from the body (10 remote from 2 in figure 1); and a hose (14) connecting the body and the tool portion (paragraph [0048]), the hose providing a fluid connection between the body and the tool portion (paragraph [0048]); wherein when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface (removable battery pack 32 can be removed and placed on a surface, where it is not claimed that the removable battery is attached to the tool when placed on a horizontal surface), a length of the pump in a horizontal direction is greater than a height of the pump in a vertical direction (length of 54 is greater than height as shown in figures 4 and 5); wherein the body further comprises a circuit board (PCBA 34 within back pack as shown in figure 27, paragraph [0049]); wherein the circuit board (34) is disposed between (as shown in figure 27) the pump (pump connected to motor 30, paragraph [0054]) and the removable battery pack (32); and wherein the body further comprises an actuator configured to control the pump (motor 30 controls pump 54, paragraph [0054]). However, Mantes does not teach that the removable battery pack serves as a weighted base on which the sprayer body is mounted; and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface. Wu teaches a removable battery pack (20) serves as a weighted base on which a sprayer body (10) is mounted (10 mounted upon 20 as shown in figure 1); and the removable battery pack supports and stabilizes the sprayer body such that the sprayer body remains in place when the removable battery pack is placed on a flat horizontal surface (figure 5 shows 10 mounted upon 20 on a flat surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to replace the internal battery of Mantes with the bottom battery slid into grooves of a housing, as taught by Wu, in order to mount the battery to the housing in a good limited slippage relationship (Page 6, first paragraph at top of page).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights