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 .
Claim Status
Pending claims 1-20 are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation “wherein the nozzle liquid passageway … outside of the spray gun platform the nozzle liquid passageway is separate from the spray gun platform” should be amended to add a comma after “platform”. 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 14, 16, 19, 20 is/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 14 recites the limitation “the spray gun platform” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “during operation, a pressure setting at the pressure regulator is configured to be a negligible pressure, or at least 30 PSI (not inclusive)”. The term “negligible” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “negligible” 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. Additionally, it is unclear if pressure range of 30 psi and up are considered within the claimed “negligible pressure”. The metes and bound of the claim scope is not understood and therefore indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “setting a pressure at a pressure regulator to a negligible pressure”. The term “negligible” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “negligible” 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.
Claim 20 discloses “wherein an average atomized adhesive droplet size is at least 2 times an average atomized paint droplet size when run through the spray gun platform and spray gun nozzle assembly”. It is unclear what range of average paint droplet size should be considered with respect to the scope of claim 20. The metes and bound of “an average atomized adhesive droplet size is at least 2 times an average atomized paint droplet size” cannot be understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958).
Regarding claim 1, Kruse discloses a system (figs. 3 and 19), comprising:
a spray gun nozzle assembly (region 3) comprising a nozzle body portion (3; par. 42) having a nozzle gas passageway (from 21 to 24, 25) and a nozzle liquid passageway (from downstream of 15 to passage opening 9) formed therein, the nozzle gas passageway is formed between a nozzle gas inlet (downstream portion of 21) and a nozzle gas outlet (25), the nozzle liquid passageway is formed between a nozzle liquid inlet (opening at 100) and a nozzle liquid outlet (9), the nozzle body portion comprises a first connector format (15; see fig. 19, par. 86-87 and 91) at the nozzle liquid inlet, wherein the nozzle liquid inlet and the nozzle gas inlet are arranged obliquely relative to each other (see annotation below);
an adhesive adaptor (16, fig. 19; par. 87, 91; see annotated figure 19) having a first end (upper end of 16 connected to 15) configured to form a fluid-tight connection (via threaded connection) with the nozzle liquid passageway (see annotated figure 3 below), the adhesive adaptor having a first adaptor opening (upper opening of 16 at connection to 15; see fig. 19) formed therein at the first end (upper end) and a second adaptor opening (bottom opening) formed therein opposite of the first adaptor opening at a second end (bottom end), the first adaptor opening is configured to form a fluid-tight seal with the nozzle liquid inlet (via the threaded connection to 15, as shown in fig. 19); and
an adhesive cartridge container (30; container 30 can receive an adhesive cartridge) comprising a container body portion (31, 32, 60; par. 91) further comprising a first container opening (opening of 60) and an adhesive cartridge container gas inlet (38; fig. 3; par. 90), wherein the first container opening is configured to couple with the second adaptor opening (see fig. 19),
PNG
media_image1.png
799
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
445
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kruse, in the embodiment of figs. 3 and 19, does not teach the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet is configured to receive pressurized gas, the adhesive cartridge container is configured to receive an adhesive cartridge containing an adhesive; wherein the system, when assembled, is configured to dispense an adhesive having a viscosity of at least 4000 centipoise (Kruse discloses variants of the container with the gas inlet opening configured to receive pressurized gas where the container is provided upside-down, but not specifically the configuration in fig. 3; additionally, par. 3-5 of Kruse indicate that spray guns are known for distributing adhesives, but is silent regarding the specific configuration intended to dispense adhesive with viscosity of at least 4000 centipoise).
Joseph discloses a comparable spray gun (fig. 1) having a spray gun nozzle assembly at 126 to 128, an adhesive adaptor 54, an adhesive cartridge container 104 comprising a container body portion (body of 104) further comprising a first container opening 118 and an adhesive cartridge container gas inlet 92, wherein the first container opening is configured to couple with the second adaptor opening (of 54), the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet is configured to receive pressurized gas (par. 36: “Upon introduction of air in the direction “a” through the inlet port 92 of the outer pouch 104 and into the pressure zone 116, the inner pouch 106 receives pressure and liquid from the coating liquid chamber 86 is expelled”), the adhesive cartridge container 104 is configured to receive an adhesive cartridge 108 containing an adhesive (par. 37);
wherein the system, when assembled, is configured to dispense an adhesive having a viscosity of at least 4000 centipoise (par. 10 discloses various value of air pressures capable of dispensing adhesive having viscosity of at least 4000 centipoise in light of applicant’s disclosure in paragraph 63, conveying pressure ranges between 6-40 psi are sufficient).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse to incorporate the teachings of Joseph to configure the container 30 upside-down with an adhesive cartridge container gas inlet configured to receive pressurized gas, the adhesive cartridge container is configured to receive an adhesive cartridge containing an adhesive, wherein the system, when assembled, is configured to dispense an adhesive having a viscosity of at least 4000 centipoise. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating reusing the outer container, and allowing the inner container to be easily replaced by a new pouch/cartridge (see paragraph 2, 3, 31).
Regarding claim 2, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Kruse discloses the first connector format (15) is configured for a pressure-fed operation (the structure as shown in figs. 3 and 19 is as claimed and can be used for pressure-fed operation), the first connector format is arranged along an axis that is oblique to a spray axis (see annotation in fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 3, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first connector format (15) is configured for gravity-fed operation (as modified in view of Joseph, the structure at 15 can be configured for gravity-fed operation in the upside-down container).
Regarding claim 4, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the adhesive cartridge (Joseph, inner pouch 106) comprises an attachment format (114), the adhesive adaptor and/or the adhesive cartridge container (Joseph, 104, 108) comprises complementary attachment format (118) on an inside surface configured to couple with the attachment format (par. 35).
Regarding claim 5, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a spray gun platform (see annotation in rejection of claim 1) comprising a platform gas passageway (see annotation in rejection of claim 1) that is configured to couple to the nozzle gas passageway (downstream portion of 21), wherein the nozzle liquid passageway is configured to directly couple to a liquid source (from 30) outside of the spray gun platform (see annotation in rejection of claim 1), the nozzle liquid passageway is separate from the spray gun platform (see annotated figures in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the container body portion comprises a tubular wall (Kruse, wall 33).
Regarding claim 12, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the adhesive cartridge container (as modified in view of Joseph) has an internal width dimension (see annotation below) and an internal height dimension (see annotation below), but is silent regarding the internal height dimension is at least 2 times the internal width dimension.
However, in Kruse, the height of the outer container is much larger than the different widths of the same container (see annotation below).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the internal height dimension is at least 2 times the internal width dimension, since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
PNG
media_image3.png
676
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Kruse, in the cited embodiment of fig. 3, is silent regarding the adhesive cartridge container comprises a plunger configured to actuate in response to receiving a flow of gas from a gas source.
In a different embodiment shown in figure 12, Kruse discloses the adhesive cartridge container comprises a plunger 808 and 812 configured to actuate in response to receiving a flow of gas from a gas source (par. 67: “Following the introduction of compressed air into the air chamber 501, the intermediate floor 802 is displaced downward. As a result, in addition to the force of gravity, an additional compressive force is exerted on the liquid 500”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse to incorporate the teachings of Kruse’s alternate container embodiment shown in fig. 12 to provide the adhesive cartridge container comprises a plunger configured to actuate in response to receiving a flow of gas from a gas source. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a forced flow of liquid/adhesive (See Paragraph 67-68) into the spray gun for improved flow and/or reduce waste.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Reedy (US20050284963).
Regarding claim 8, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 7, but is silent regarding the adhesive cartridge container comprises a cap having the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet formed therein.
Reedy discloses a comparable spray gun with a upper container 225 (fig. 2) comprises a cap 224 having a gas inlet at 230 formed therein (par. 15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse to incorporate the teachings of Reedy to provide the adhesive cartridge container comprises a cap having the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet formed therein. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating ease of cleaning the container parts and help maintain pressure on the fluid that is gravity-fed, consequently improve incoming flow and reduce waste of fluid.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Joseph (US20150028131; hereafter “Joseph 2”).
Regarding claim 9, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent regarding the nozzle body portion comprises a projection configured to pierce the adhesive cartridge.
Joseph 2 discloses a comparable spray gun 3, 21, container 116 (fig. 1A) and cartridge 84 wherein the nozzle body portion comprises a projection 86 configured to pierce the adhesive cartridge 84 to automatically pierce the closure 85 upon installation of the cartridge onto the spray gun (par. 123).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse to incorporate the teachings of Joseph 2 to provide the nozzle body portion comprises a projection configured to pierce the adhesive cartridge. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating automatic piercing of cartridge upon installation (See paragraph 123).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958) and Joseph 2 (US20150028131), further in view of Davolt (US 3881627).
Regarding claim 10, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the nozzle liquid inlet is formed by a spout wall (Kruse’s wall at 100 or 15; or spout wall directly contacting coupling protrusion 102 shown in fig. 4 of Joseph 2) comprising a rim (rim of 100 or 15; or spout wall in fig. of Joseph 2) but is silent regarding the rim further comprising a deformable sealing surface, wherein the deformable sealing surface does not interfere with the attachment format of the adhesive cartridge when the system is assembled.
Davolt discloses sealing structure on a spout wall 12a, shown in fig. 6, having deformable sealing surfaces 18a and 18b, wherein the annular ridge 29 is preferably formed in the shape of a hemisphere and is adapted to press against and deform the planar walls 18a and 18b of groove 18 to provide a secondary leakproof seal in the container and closure of the present invention (col. 3, ln 25-32: “ Between the outer skirt 23 and inner skirt 25 of the closure, there is provided an integral, annular bead or ridge 29. As seen more clearly in FIG. 6A, the annular ridge 29 is preferably formed in the shape of a hemisphere and is adapted to press against and deform the planar walls 18a and 18b of groove 18 to provide a secondary leakproof seal in the container and closure of the present invention”). As modified in view of Davolt, the sealing surfaces at the rim would not interfere with attachment on the inside surface of the spout since they are not at the same place.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse and Joseph to incorporate the teachings of Davolt to provide the rim further comprising a deformable sealing surface. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating seal improvement for the connection at the rim (See col. 3, ln 25-32).
Claims 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Castellano (US5979797).
Regarding claim 14, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent regarding an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve configured to fluidically couple to the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet, wherein the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve is independently adjustable from the spray gun platform, further comprising a splitter that is configured to mate with a pressure regulator and the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve, wherein the pressure regulator is configured to couple with a gas inlet which further couples to the platform gas passageway of the spray gun platform.
Castellano discloses a comparable system having a container pressure valve 126 configured to fluidically couple to the container gas inlet 142, wherein the container pressure valve is independently adjustable from the spray gun platform 110 (as shown in fig. 1), further comprising a splitter 114 that is configured to mate with a pressure regulator 118 and the container pressure valve 126, wherein the pressure regulator 118 is configured to couple with a gas inlet 120 which further couples to the platform gas passageway 186 of the spray gun platform 110 (see fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse and Joseph to incorporate the teachings of Castellano to provide an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve configured to fluidically couple to the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet, wherein the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve is independently adjustable from the spray gun platform, further comprising a splitter that is configured to mate with a pressure regulator and the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve, wherein the pressure regulator is configured to couple with a gas inlet which further couples to the platform gas passageway of the spray gun platform. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow control via the valves to prevent damage to the container (col. 2, ln 39-46) and consequently better flow control for the desired spray discharge.
Regarding claim 15, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 14, wherein Kruse and Castellano is silent regarding pressure at the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve is configured to be at least 20 PSI when the system is operating.
Joseph, however, discloses various example of the pressure at the container being in the range of 10-25 or 25-40 psi (par. 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse and Castellano to incorporate the teachings of Joseph to provide pressure at the adhesive cartridge container pressure valve is configured to be at least 20 PSI when the system is operating. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired spray discharge flow or coverage for the intended application.
Regarding claim 16, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 14, wherein Kruse and Castellano is silent regarding, during operation, a pressure setting at the pressure regulator is configured to be a negligible pressure, or at least 30 PSI (not inclusive).
Joseph, however, discloses various example of the pressure at the container being in the range of 10-25 or 25-40 psi (par. 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kruse and Castellano to incorporate the teachings of Joseph to provide a pressure setting at the pressure regulator is configured to be a negligible pressure, or at least 30 PSI. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired spray discharge flow or coverage for the intended application.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruse (US 20180147586) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Joseph 3 (US20060065761).
Regarding claim 6, Kruse, as modified, discloses the system of claim 1, but is silent regarding the adhesive cartridge container comprises a second connector format that is complementary to the first connector format.
Joseph 3 discloses a comparable system having the container 542 (fig. 10) comprises a second connector format 544 that is complementary to the first connector format 541, so that the container can be directly connected to the nozzle assembly.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to incorporate the teachings of Joseph 3 to provide the adhesive cartridge container comprises a second connector format that is complementary to the first connector format. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating direct connection between the container and nozzle assembly, which consequently improve installation by simplifying the system assembly.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blette (US 20050145724) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Castellano (US5979797).
Regarding claim 17, Blette discloses a method (via disclosure below), comprising:
obtaining a spray gun platform (40) and a spray gun nozzle assembly (12), wherein the spray gun nozzle assembly is detachable from the spray gun platform (see fig. 2),
wherein the spray gun nozzle assembly (12) comprises a nozzle liquid passageway (16) formed between a nozzle liquid inlet (17) and a nozzle liquid outlet (18), and a nozzle gas passageway (from adjacent 43, 44 to air outlets 28a, 28b; air passageways 20, 26; par. 31) formed between a nozzle gas inlet (adjacent 43, 44; fig. 4) and a nozzle gas outlet (28a, 28b), wherein the nozzle liquid inlet and the nozzle gas inlet are not arranged along the same axis or coaxially (see fig. 4),
wherein the spray gun platform (40; fig. 7) comprising a platform gas passageway (at valve 46) formed therein, wherein the platform gas passageway is configured to fluidically couple to a gas source (via inlet end 45; fig. 7), wherein the nozzle gas inlet is configured to releasably couple with the platform gas passageway (as shown in fig. 2);
assembling the spray gun platform and the spray gun nozzle assembly such that the nozzle gas inlet is coupled with the platform gas passageway (as shown in fig. 4), wherein the nozzle liquid outlet (18) is controlled by a needle valve (70 and end portion 75 of the needle) on the spray gun platform (controlled via the trigger 64; par. 31), the spray gun platform is not configured to contact an adhesive (spray gun can be used with adhesive; alternatively, paint, disclosed in par. 35, is a liquid that adhere to surface, hence an adhesive) except through the needle valve (as can be seen in fig. 4; seal 74 isolates the gun platform from the incoming liquid flow in via passage 16);
activating a trigger of the spray gun platform, wherein activating the trigger causes the needle valve to open and thereby dispensing the adhesive through the nozzle liquid outlet (par. 31: “The end portion 75 of that needle 70 moves away from the inner surface of the liquid passageway 16 to allow liquid to flow through it when the trigger member 64 is manually moved toward the handle portion 66 and away from its closed position against the bias of the spring 63”);
removing the spray gun nozzle assembly from the spray gun platform (par. 29: “allow the nozzle portion 14 to be … removed from the platform portion 40”).
Blette does not teach coupling an adhesive cartridge containing the adhesive to the nozzle liquid inlet, wherein the adhesive cartridge is configured to be pressurized from the gas source.
Joseph discloses a comparable spray gun (fig. 1) having a spray gun nozzle assembly at 126 to 128, an adhesive cartridge container 104 comprising a container body portion (body of 104) further comprising a first container opening 118 and an adhesive cartridge container gas inlet 92, the adhesive cartridge container gas inlet is configured to receive pressurized gas (par. 36: “Upon introduction of air in the direction “a” through the inlet port 92 of the outer pouch 104 and into the pressure zone 116, the inner pouch 106 receives pressure and liquid from the coating liquid chamber 86 is expelled”), the adhesive cartridge container 104 is configured to receive an adhesive cartridge 108 containing an adhesive (par. 37).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blette to incorporate the teachings of Joseph to configure coupling an adhesive cartridge containing the adhesive to the nozzle liquid inlet, wherein the adhesive cartridge is configured to be pressurized from the gas source. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating reusing the outer container, and allowing the inner container to be easily replaced by a new pouch/cartridge (see paragraph 2, 3, 31).
Regarding claim 18, Blette, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: adjusting a shaping gas adjustment knob (46) such that there is no shaping gas flow from an air horn (par. 29: “an adjustable valve member 46 for regulating the portion of air flow through the air distribution passageways that can flow to the second air outlet opening 44, and manually operated valve means 47 for stopping or allowing flow of air from the inlet passageway 42 to the outlet openings 43 and 44 of the air distribution passageways”).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blette (US 20050145724) in view of Joseph (US 20160038958), further in view of Castellano (US5979797).
Regarding claim 19, Blette, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 17, but is silent regarding:
setting a pressure at a pressure regulator to a negligible pressure;
setting a pressure at an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve to at least 30 PSI;
wherein activating the trigger of the spray gun platform causes a bead of adhesive to dispense from the spray gun nozzle assembly.
Castellano discloses a comparable system having a container pressure valve 126 configured to fluidically couple to the container gas inlet 142, wherein the container pressure valve is independently adjustable from the spray gun platform 110 (as shown in fig. 1), further comprising a splitter 114 that is configured to mate with a pressure regulator 118 and the container pressure valve 126, wherein the pressure regulator 118 is configured to couple with a gas inlet 120 which further couples to the platform gas passageway 186 of the spray gun platform 110 (see fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blette to incorporate the teachings of Castellano to provide an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve and a pressure regulator, wherein the pressure regulator is configured to couple with a gas inlet which further couples to the platform gas passageway of the spray gun platform. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow control via the valves to prevent damage to the container (col. 2, ln 39-46) and consequently better flow control for the desired spray discharge.
Blette, as modified in view of Joseph and Castellano, would include the adhesive cartridge, pressure regulator and adhesive cartridge container pressure valve. Joseph, further discloses various example of the pressure at the container being in the range of 10-25 or 25-40 psi (par. 10-11) to affect the shape of the discharge from the outlet nozzle on the spray gun. Since Blette’s system utilize shaping air to atomize the liquid (par. 28) and to allow stopping of the shaping air (par. 29), with the pressure regulator and adhesive pressure valve provided on the system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to stop and/or minimize air flow through the spray gun to minimize or prevent atomization of fluid.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blette to incorporate the teachings of Joseph and Castellano to try various pressure combinations, including lower pressure through the spray gun, and higher pressure in the adhesive container, for desired discharge of adhesive beads, as opposed to atomized spray. No inventive effort would have been required. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired shape of liquid discharge.
Regarding claim 20, Blette, as modified above, discloses the method of claim 17, but is silent regarding:
setting a pressure at the pressure regulator to at least 30 PSI;
setting a pressure at an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve to no greater than 12 PSI;
wherein activating a trigger of the spray gun platform causes atomized adhesive to dispense from the spray gun nozzle assembly, wherein an average atomized adhesive droplet size is at least 2 times an average atomized paint droplet size when run through the spray gun platform and spray gun nozzle assembly.
Castellano discloses a comparable system having a container pressure valve 126 configured to fluidically couple to the container gas inlet 142, wherein the container pressure valve is independently adjustable from the spray gun platform 110 (as shown in fig. 1), further comprising a splitter 114 that is configured to mate with a pressure regulator 118 and the container pressure valve 126, wherein the pressure regulator 118 is configured to couple with a gas inlet 120 which further couples to the platform gas passageway 186 of the spray gun platform 110 (see fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blette to incorporate the teachings of Castellano to provide an adhesive cartridge container pressure valve and a pressure regulator, wherein the pressure regulator is configured to couple with a gas inlet which further couples to the platform gas passageway of the spray gun platform. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow control via the valves to prevent damage to the container (col. 2, ln 39-46) and consequently better flow control for the desired spray discharge.
Blette, as modified in view of Joseph and Castellano, would include the adhesive cartridge, pressure regulator and adhesive cartridge container pressure valve. Joseph, further discloses various example of the pressure at the container being in the range of 10-25 or 25-40 psi (par. 10-11) to affect the shape of the discharge from the outlet nozzle on the spray gun. Since Blette’s system utilize shaping air to atomize the liquid (par. 28), with the pressure regulator and adhesive pressure valve provided on the system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to adjust air flow through the spray gun to optimize atomization of fluid for various droplet size of the spray.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blette to incorporate the teachings of Joseph and Castellano to try various pressure combinations, including higher pressure through the spray gun, and lower pressure in the adhesive container, for desired discharge of atomized spray. No inventive effort would have been required. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the desired shape of liquid discharge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights