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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms filed on December 19, 2024 and June 5, 2026 are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the aforementioned IDS forms.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference number “216” (see specification paragraphs [0111]-[0118]) is not shown in the drawings.
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. 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.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number “126” (see Fig. 5) is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 / Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because, on the fourth line thereof, “interfaced” should be replaced with --interface--.
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 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, on line 1, “the receiving portion” lacks clear antecedent basis. Is this recitation intended to recite “the receiving area”, for which claim 1 provides proper antecedent basis?
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.
Claims 1-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torntore, USPN 5,505,381.
As to claim 1, Torntore shows a spray tip (see Figs. 4-7) for a handheld fluid sprayer (G; see Fig. 1), the spray tip comprising: a tip body (20) having a tip channel (25) extending laterally therethrough from a channel upstream end to a channel downstream end; a pre-orifice piece (combination of 28 and 27; or combination of 28, 27 and 30) disposed within the tip channel, the pre-orifice piece having a first upstream end, a first downstream end, and a receiving area (area delimited by 27, where the radially outer region at the upstream-most end of “F” engages 27; see Figs. 4 and 6); and a tip piece (F) disposed within the tip channel adjacent the pre-orifice piece, the tip piece having a second upstream end and a second downstream end; wherein the second upstream end is disposed within the receiving area.
As to claim 2, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 1, and wherein: the pre-orifice piece includes a pre-orifice passage (the clearly shown passage defined through 28, and the region radially inward of 27; or 30e + the clearly shown passage defined through 28, and the region radially inward of 27; see Fig. 4) extending from the first upstream end to the first downstream end; the tip piece includes a tip passage (the clearly shown passage defined through “F”; see Fig. 4) extending from the second upstream end to the second downstream end; a downstream portion of the pre-orifice passage and an upstream portion of the tip passage define a turbulation chamber (region radially inward of 27; or the upstream-most chamber in “F” + the region radially inward of 27; see Fig. 4.)
As to claim 3, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 2, and wherein the downstream portion of the pre-orifice passage includes a first chamber (as defined by at least a portion of the passage through 28) and a second chamber (the region radially inward of 27; see Fig. 4), the first chamber extending between an orifice (the opening at the upstream-most region of 28a, as implicitly disclosed in column 3, lines 50-51) through the first upstream end and the second chamber (see again, Fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 3, and wherein the upstream portion of the tip passage includes a third chamber (the upstream-most chamber defined by “F”, as shown in Fig. 4).
As to claim 5, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 4, and wherein: the first chamber has a first diameter, the second chamber has a second diameter, and the third chamber has a third diameter; and the second diameter is larger than the first diameter and the third diameter (comparative diameter limitations met, when the “chamber” elements of Torntore are applied to claims 3 and 4, above).
As to claim 6, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 5, and wherein the third diameter is taken at an upstream end of the third chamber and is larger than the first diameter (comparative diameter limitation met, when the “chamber” elements of Torntore are applied to claims 3-5, above).
As to claim 7, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 2, and wherein a diameter of the receiving area (as measured where the radially outer region at the upstream-most end of “F” engages 27 in Fig. 4) is larger than a maximum diameter of the turbulation chamber (the diameter within 27, which is shown to be slightly smaller than where the radially outer region at the upstream-most end of “F” is in engagement with 27; see Figs. 4 and 6).
As to claim 8, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 2, and wherein an inner radial portion (planar, upstream end of “F”) of the second upstream end is exposed within the turbulation chamber (see Fig. 4).
As to claim 9, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 1, and wherein an annular ring (27)
projects from the first downstream end and surrounds the receiving area.
As to claim 10, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 1, and wherein the tip body includes a barrel (barrel portion of 20; see Fig. 4) through which the tip channel is formed.
As to claim 11, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 10, and wherein the tip body further comprises a handle (20a) disposed at an end of the barrel (see Fig. 4).
As to claim 12, Torntore shows the spray tip of claim 1, and wherein the pre-orifice piece includes a first outer diameter (for example, the largest outer diameter of 28, or the largest outer diameter of 27, or the largest outer diameter of 30) and the tip piece includes a second outer diameter (any outer diameter of “F”), and wherein the first outer diameter is larger than the second outer diameter (all of the exemplary first outer diameters of the pre-orifice piece, as applied above, are larger than any measured outer diameter of “F”, as shown in Figs. 4 and 6).
As to claim 16, Torntore shows a spray tip (see Figs. 4-7) for a handheld fluid sprayer (G: see Fig. 1), the spray tip comprising: a tip body (20) having a tip channel (25) extending laterally therethrough from a channel upstream end to a channel downstream end, the tip body including a barrel (barrel portion of 20; see Fig. 4) through which the tip channel is formed and a handle (20a) at an end of the barrel (see again, Fig. 4); a pre-orifice piece (combination of 28 and 27; or combination of 28, 27 and 30) disposed within the tip channel, the pre-orifice piece having a first upstream end, a first downstream end, and an annular ring (27) projecting from the first downstream end and surrounding a receiving area (area delimited by 27, where the radially outer region at the upstream-most end of “F” engages 27; see Figs. 4 and 6); and a tip piece (F) disposed within the tip channel adjacent the pre-orifice piece, the tip piece having a second upstream end and a second downstream end; wherein the second upstream end is disposed within the receiving area; and wherein the pre-orifice piece includes a first outer diameter (for example, the largest outer diameter of 28, or the largest outer diameter of 27, or the largest outer diameter of 30) and the tip piece includes a second outer diameter (any outer diameter of “F”), and wherein the first outer diameter is larger than the second outer diameter (all of the exemplary first outer diameters of the pre-orifice piece, as applied above, are larger than any measured outer diameter of “F”, as shown in Figs. 4 and 6).
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 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torntore, in view of Becker et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0228883.
As to claim 13, Torntore shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, however Torntore does not expressly disclose that the tip body is overmolded around the pre-orifice piece and the tip piece.
It should first be noted that the “overmolded” limitation recited in claim 13 can reasonably be considered a product-by-process limitation. Thus, it is noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Regardless, Becker shows a spray tip (see Fig. 2) for a handheld fluid sprayer (10; see Fig. 1), which has a similar design, function and effect as that shown by Torntore, and Becker teaches that the corresponding tip body (100) is overmolded around the corresponding pre-orifice piece (104) and the corresponding tip piece (102; see paragraph [0012]). Becker teaches that such is advantageous because such overmolding “captures the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for additional retainers or anchoring parts or seals” (see again, paragraph [0012]). Therefore, since the spray tip assembly shown by Torntore includes at least one additional retainer or anchoring part or seal (such as at 21a, 21b and/or 22; see Fig. 4; and see column 3, lines 4-8), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overmolding process to form the tip body, as taught by Becker, as part of the process for the producing the spray tip of Torntore, thus advantageously capturing the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for the additional retainers, anchoring parts or seals, like those shown by Torntore.
As to claim 14, while Torntore generically shows a known construction of a handheld fluid sprayer (described as a “typical airless spray gun G” - see Fig. 1; and see column 2, line 42), for which the spray tip is usable, it does not appear that the shown and vaguely/generically described handheld fluid sprayer of the Torntore document is of the type which would necessarily include a fluid supply mounted to the sprayer body, as well as a pump configured to pump fluid through the sprayer body from the fluid supply to the spray tip.
It should first be noted that the Torntore disclosure mainly focuses on the construction of the spray tip, and generally states that the disclosure relates to using the spray tip with any airless fluid sprayers where rotatable/reversible spray tip constructions can be employed (see the first paragraphs under each of the sections labeled, “FIELD OF THE INVENTION” and “BACKGROUND AND OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION” of Torntore). Thus, Becker shows a spray tip (see Fig. 2) for a handheld fluid sprayer, which has a similar rotatable/reversible design, function and effect as that shown by Torntore, and Becker shows/describes the spray tip being used with an exemplary handheld airless fluid sprayer (10; see Fig. 1), which includes a fluid supply (14) mounted to a sprayer body (12), and a pump configured to pump fluid though the sprayer body from the fluid supply to the spray tip (see paragraph [0014]). As would be readily gleaned from the exemplary fluid sprayer shown by Becker, such a fluid sprayer construction would be considered more compact and self-contained than that shown by Torntore, since the Becker fluid sprayer does not require, for example, product-conveying hoses or external pump mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spray tip construction of Torntore with a handheld fluid sprayer like that shown by Becker, since Torntore open-endedly discloses that the spray tip construction is usable with “typical” known handheld airless fluid sprayers, and Torntore teaches a known handheld airless fluid sprayer with which rotatable/reversible spray tip constructions may be employed, and which would be considered more compact and self-contained than that shown by Torntore.
As to claim 15, modified Torntore shows the handheld fluid sprayer of claim 14. However, Torntore does not expressly disclose that the tip body is overmolded around the pre-orifice piece and the tip piece.
It should be noted that the “overmolded” limitation recited in claim 15 can reasonably be considered a product-by-process limitation. Thus, it is noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Regardless, Becker shows the handheld fluid sprayer discussed above with respect to claim 14, and Becker teaches that the corresponding tip body (100) is overmolded around the corresponding pre-orifice piece (104) and the corresponding tip piece (102; see paragraph [0012]). Becker teaches that such is advantageous because such overmolding “captures the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for additional retainers or anchoring parts or seals” (see again, paragraph [0012]). Therefore, since the spray tip assembly shown by Torntore includes at least one additional retainer or anchoring part or seal (such as at 21a, 21b and/or 22; see Fig. 4; and see column 3, lines 4-8), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overmolding process, as taught by Becker, to form the tip body of the handheld fluid sprayer of modified Torntore, thus advantageously capturing the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for the additional retainers, anchoring parts or seals, like those shown by Torntore.
As to claim 17, Torntore shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 16, however Torntore does not expressly disclose that the tip body is overmolded around the pre-orifice piece and the tip piece.
It should be noted that the “overmolded” limitation recited in claim 17 can reasonably be considered a product-by-process limitation. Thus, it is noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Regardless, Becker shows a spray tip (see Fig. 2) for a handheld fluid sprayer (10; see Fig. 1), which has a similar design, function and effect as that shown by Torntore, and Becker teaches that the corresponding tip body (100) is overmolded around the corresponding pre-orifice piece (104) and the corresponding tip piece (102; see paragraph [0012]). Becker teaches that such is advantageous because such overmolding “captures the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for additional retainers or anchoring parts or seals” (see again, paragraph [0012]). Therefore, since the spray tip assembly shown by Torntore includes at least one additional retainer or anchoring part or seal (such as at 21a, 21b and/or 22; see Fig. 4; and see column 3, lines 4-8), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overmolding process to form the tip body, as taught by Becker, as part of the process for the producing the spray tip of Torntore, thus advantageously capturing the tip piece and the pre-orifice piece without the need for the additional retainers, anchoring parts or seals, like those shown by Torntore
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0044881 to Ghesla et al. shows embodiments of a reversible spray tip (30) for a handheld fluid sprayer, including at least one embodiment (see Figs. 6a-6e) having the upstream end of a tip piece (33) received within a recessed receiving area defined by an annular ring which projects from the downstream end of a pre-orifice piece (32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights