DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 1,689,848) in view of O’Brien (US 2009/0121167).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a spray gun comprising:
a housing (8, 6) comprising a barrel (8) and a handle (7) disposed in angular relation to the barrel (Figure 2).
an orifice member (14) defining a discharge orifice (21) adjacent a downstream end of said barrel (Figure 2).
said barrel having a liquid supply conduit (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) for directing liquid from a liquid supply (Page 1, lines 81-85) to said discharge orifice (Page 1, line 100-Page 2, line 25);
a valve stem (34) disposed within said barrel liquid supply conduit (Figure 2) for relative movement between discharge orifice opening and closing positions (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Page 3, lines 47-65);
a trigger (44) pivotally mounted for transferring angular motion of the trigger into translational movement of the valve stem for enabling the flow of liquid through said liquid supply conduit for discharge from said discharge orifice for enabling the flow of liquid through said liquid supply conduit for discharge from said discharge orifice (The limitations is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Page 3, lines 47-65), but fails to disclose a magnet assembly including a pair of magnets with common polarities of the magnets disposed in opposed relation to each other for creating an opposing magnetic force between the magnets for biasing said valve stem to said discharge orifice closing position responsive to repelling magnetic force of said magnet assembly for moving said valve stem against the magnetic force of said magnetic assembly; and
said repelling magnetic force of said magnet assembly being effective for urging said valve stem to said discharge orifice closing position upon release of said trigger.
Anderson discloses a device that includes a spring biasing a stem into a closed position. O’Brien discloses a device that includes a magnet assembly biasing a stem into a closed position (Figure 2) as an alternative to a system with a spring biasing a stem into a closed position (Figure 3). The magnet assembly of O’Brien includes a pair of magnets (64, 70) with common polarities (Figure 2), the magnets disposed in opposed relation to each other for creating an opposing magnetic force between the magnets (Figure 2, the southern polarities are disposed opposite one another), for biasing said valve stem to said discharge orifice closing position responsive to repelling magnetic force of said magnet assembly, for moving said valve stem against the magnetic force of said magnetic assembly (The limitations are interpreted as recitations of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight, Paragraphs 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson with the disclosures of O’Brien replacing the spring biasing structure of Anderson with that of O’Brien thereby providing a magnet assembly including a pair of magnets (O’Brien, 64, 70) with common polarities (O’Brien, Figure 2), the magnets disposed in opposed relation to each other for creating an opposing magnetic force between the magnets (O’Brien, Figure 2, the southern polarities are disposed opposite one another), for biasing said valve stem (Anderson, 34) to said discharge orifice closing position responsive to repelling magnetic force of said magnet assembly, for moving said valve stem against the magnetic force of said magnetic assembly (The limitations are interpreted as recitations of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight, O’Brien, Paragraphs 32-33), as the configurations were known alternatives before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of a force necessary to maintain the valve stem in a closed position, during moments of non-operation.
Anderson in view of O’Brien further discloses a trigger (Anderson, 44) for retracting the valve stem against the magnetic force of said magnetic assembly (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore, afforded limited patentable weight; The trigger is capable of performing the claimed function, as modified), said repelling magnetic force of said magnet assembly being effective for urging said valve stem to said discharge orifice closing position upon release of said trigger (O’Brien, Paragraph 33, line 4-9).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 1 in which the magnet assembly (O’Brien, 64, 70) is disposed outside of said liquid supply conduit (9) (O’Brien, Figure 2 and Anderson, Figure 2; The spring 62 and bushing 58 are outside of the liquid conduit).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 4 in which said magnet assembly is mounted outside an upstream end of said barrel liquid supply conduit (Anderson, 11) (O’Brien Figure 2 and Anderson, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 1, in which said handle (7) includes an inlet conduit (hose) communicating between an inlet (11) of said barrel liquid supply conduit and said liquid supply (Anderson, Page 1, lines 81-85; A hose connection communicates from a material source to the handle through a hose).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 1 in which said pair of magnets (O’ Brien, 64, 70) are ring magnets (O’ Brien Paragraph 29) mounted on a rear extension (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) of said valve stem (Anderson, 34) (O’Brien, Figure 2 and Anderson, Figure, 2);
one of said ring magnets (O’Brien, 70) being rearwardly mounted against a stop surface (Anderson, 58) fixed to said barrel liquid supply conduit (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1, The elements are fixed to the conduit through connection to the barrel) and the other of said magnets (O’ Brien 64) is forwardly mounted against a stop surface (Anderson, 56) on said valve stem (as modified); and
the repelling magnetic force of said magnets forces said forwardly mounted magnet against said stop surface on said valve stem and said rearward magnet against the stop fixed to the liquid supply conduit (O’ Brien, Paragraphs 32-33).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 8, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 7 in which said magnets (64,70) are disposed within a cylindrical housing (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) affixed to an upstream end of said barrel liquid supply conduit (The elements are integral); and
said stop surface of said rearwardly mounted magnet being an upstream end cap of said housing (Anderson, Figure 2, The element closes the opening of the chamber into which the return elements are secured into the barrel).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim 6 in which said barrel includes an outer barrel housing (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) through which said barrel liquid supply conduit extends, and said handle includes an outer housing (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) through which said handle liquid inlet conduit extends (Anderson, Figure 2).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of O’Brien and Chih (US 5,630,548).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of O’Brien discloses the spray gun of claim but fails to disclose the device including a flow straightener mounted within said barrel liquid supply conduit for maintaining the valve stem centered within the barrel liquid supply conduit and maintaining the uniform flow of liquid through said liquid supply conduit.
Chih discloses a device with a needle valve further including a flow straightener (233).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson in view of O’Brien with the disclosures of Chih, providing the needle valve to include a flow straightener (Chih, 233), thereby providing a flow straightener mounted within said barrel liquid supply conduit (as modified) for maintaining the valve stem centered within the barrel liquid supply conduit and maintaining the uniform flow of liquid through said liquid supply conduit (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The element is capable of performing the claimed function), in order to provide for a known structure that provides predictable results, including sealing of the nozzle structure, as disclosed by Chih (Column 3, lines 17-30).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson, in view of O’Brien and Chih discloses the spray gun of claim 10, wherein said flow straightener has a plurality of radial fins that define a plurality of circumferentially spaced liquid flow passages (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights