DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment filed on 8/16/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
3. 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 claimed subject matter “a plurality of nozzles” 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.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains multiple paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: as per claims 2-16, “A misting system” are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion. The examiner suggests changing “A misting system” to --The misting system-- in line 1. In claim 13, the narrative recitation “its output” leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-16 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.
I- Claim 1 is indefinite because “the fluid pressure” (line 5) lacks proper antecedent basis.
II- In claim 1, “a target” (line 5) and “fluid” (line 7) are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claim confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
II- Regarding claims 4 and 6, the use of the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotova 2010/0102079 in view of Humphreys 6,158,674.
Gotovac discloses a misting system (2) for delivering a fluid in mist form to a target, which comprises a reservoir containing a fluid to be delivered to a target (col. 2, para. [002]); a nozzle (26) in fluid communication with the reservoir, the nozzle being configured to supply a mist of the fluid to a target when the fluid pressure is above a threshold pressure; a mechanical misting pump (2) in fluid communication with the reservoir and the nozzle, the mechanical misting pump being configured to deliver fluid from the reservoir to the nozzle at a pressure that is greater than the threshold pressure upon activation of the mechanical misting pump by a user (col. 3, para. [0051]), the misting pump comprises a body (10) for containing a dose of the fluid when the misting pump is in a primed condition, the body having a port through which fluid is received from the reservoir and through which expelled fluid flows towards the nozzle when the misting pump is activated as seen in Figure 5, the body further comprising an end opposing the port for receiving a piston (8), the piston being movable within the body to draw a dose of the fluid into the body when moved into a primed position and moveable within the body to expel the dose of the fluid out of the port; an actuator (7) coupled to the piston and configured to drive the piston to expel the dose of fluid out of the port at a pressure that is greater than the threshold pressure when activated; and a biasing spring (80) to bias the piston in the primed position when the actuator is not activated, wherein the actuator comprises a pivoted handle coupled to the piston operable by a user to activate the misting pump and dispense a dose of the fluid, the handle being configured to have a mechanical advantage that is sufficient to drive the piston a sufficient distance from the primed position to generate sufficient pressure in the fluid to dispense the dose of the fluid in a single motion of the handle (7); wherein the biasing spring (80) is a conical spring mounted in the body of the mechanical misting pump (2), the wider portion of the spring contacting the body and the narrower portion contacting the piston (8), the biasing spring (80) being sufficiently strong to drive the piston into the primed position when the misting pump (2) is not activated; wherein when the biasing spring drives the piston into the primed position, fluid is drawn from the reservoir through the port into the body of the mechanical misting pump as seen in Figure 5; wherein the pivoted handle (7) provides a mechanical advantage that is greater than (as seen in Figure 5 during the activation of the trigger), a check valve (70). Gotovac lacks that the nozzle being a plurality of nozzles. Humphreys teaches the use of a dispensing system (10) with a reservoir (20) and a plurality of dispensing nozzles (54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize Humphreys’ teaching onto the nozzle of Gotovac to have a plurality of dispensing nozzles, in order to allow a large or wide surface area to be uniformly covered with the fluid.
With respect to claims 7-9, the claimed subject limitation: a dose of fluid comprises 1ml/s per nozzle, the dose is delivered for three seconds and the threshold pressure is between 40psi and 100psi. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the of fluid of Gotova and Humphreys to have a dose of fluid comprises 1ml/s per nozzle, the dose is delivered for three seconds and the threshold pressure is between 40psi and 100psi because applicants have not disclosed that having a dose of fluid comprises 1ml/s per nozzle, the dose is delivered for three seconds and the threshold pressure is between 40psi and 100psi provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the dose of Gotovac and Humphreys, and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the desired dispensing dose taught by Gotovac and Humphreys or the claimed “a dose of fluid comprises 1ml/s per nozzle, the dose is delivered for three seconds and the threshold pressure is between 40psi and 100psi because both volume of doses would perform the same function of dispensing a desired volume along with the threshold pressure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Gotovac and Humphreys to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7-9 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Gotovac and Humphreys.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5-6, 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 PM.
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, Paul R. Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754