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 .
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) 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krayer (US 9,421,562).
Regarding claim 1, Krayer discloses a system for adjusting an angular orientation of a spray pattern, the system comprising:
a spray gun (1) configured to emit spray fluid along a spray axis (Abstract line 1), the spray gun comprising:
a gun body (2);
an air cap assembly mounted to the gun body, the air cap assembly comprising:
an air cap (10) having a first air horn (right air horn 24) extending axially from the air cap (Figure 2) and spaced radially from a spray orifice (21) of the spray gun through which spray fluid is emitted at the angular orientation (Column 5, lines 22-25);
an air cap housing (11) connected to the gun body (Figure 4) to secure the air cap to the gun body (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight (Figure 4);
an alignment tool (12) including a first horn receiving opening (13), the alignment tool configured to engage with the first air horn at the first horn receiving opening (Figure 2);
wherein the alignment tool is rotatable about an axis to exert a rotational force on the air cap by the engagement between the first air horn and the alignment tool to change an angular position of the air cap and thereby change the angular orientation (Column 4, lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 4, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alignment tool is configured to shift axially along the axis to engage with the first air horn (Figure 3 depicts the tool being mode along the axis to engage the air horn).
Regarding claim 5, Krayer discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first air horn extends through the alignment tool within the first horn receiving opening (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alignment tool is configured to exert the rotational force in a first rotational direction by a first surface defining the first horn receiving opening engaging with the first air horn (Column 5, lines 22-25, The interior upper surface of the opening is configured to exert rotational force in a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 7, Krayer discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the alignment tool is configured to exert the rotational force in a second rotational direction by a second surface defining the first horn receiving opening engaging with the first air horn (Column 5, lines 22-25, The interior lower surface of the opening is configured to exert rotational force in a counter-clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 8, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein:
the air cap includes a second air horn (left air horn 24) extending axially from the air cap and spaced radially from the spray orifice (Figure 2); and the alignment tool includes a second horn receiving opening, the alignment tool configured to engage with the first air horn at the first horn receiving opening (Figure 2, the horn engages the tool at the left horn receiving opening)
Regarding claim 9, Krayer discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the first air horn extends through the alignment tool within the first horn receiving opening and the second air horn extends through the alignment tool within the second horn receiving opening (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Krayer discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the alignment tool is configured to exert the rotational force in a first rotational direction by a first surface defining the first horn receiving opening engaging with the first air horn and by a third surface defining the second horn receiving opening engaging with the second air horn (Column 5, lines 22-25, The interior upper surface of the right opening and the interior lower surface of the left opening is configured to exert rotational force in a clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 11, Krayer discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the alignment tool is configured to exert the rotational force in a second rotational direction by a second surface defining the first horn receiving opening engaging with the first air horn and by a fourth surface defining the second horn receiving opening engaging with the second air horn (Column 5, lines 22-25, The interior lower surface of the right opening and the interior upper surface of the left opening is configured to exert rotational force in a counter-clockwise direction).
Regarding claim 12, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alignment tool is disposed over the air cap housing with the alignment tool interfacing with the air cap (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Krayer discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the air cap is at least partially disposed within the alignment tool with the alignment tool interfacing with the air cap (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Krayer discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the alignment tool is configured to shift in a first direction (toward the gun) along the axis to interface with the air cap, and the alignment tool is configured to shift in a second direction (away from the gun) along the axis to dismount from the spray gun, the second direction opposite the first direction (away from the gun is opposite to toward the gun).
Claim(s) 1 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph (US 9,802,213).
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses a system for adjusting an angular orientation of a spray pattern, the system comprising:
a spray gun (1) configured to emit spray fluid along a spray axis (Abstract), the spray gun comprising:
a gun body (3);
an air cap assembly (80, 20) mounted to the gun body, the air cap assembly comprising:
an air cap (96) having a first air horn (right air horn 98) extending axially from the air cap (Figure 3) and spaced radially from a spray orifice (104) of the spray gun through which spray fluid is emitted at the angular orientation (Column 11, lines 55-59);
an air cap housing (40) connected to the gun body (Figure 1) to secure the air cap to the gun body (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight (Figure 1);
an alignment tool (124, 20) including a first horn receiving opening (98), the alignment tool configured to engage with the first air horn at the first horn receiving opening (Column 10, lines 20-28);
wherein the alignment tool is rotatable about an axis to exert a rotational force on the air cap by the engagement between the first air horn and the alignment tool to change an angular position of the air cap and thereby change the angular orientation (The tool rotates the cap onto the container).
Regarding claim 15, Joseph discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a tool body of the alignment tool includes an open end (rear end) and air cap housing extends into the alignment tool through the open end (Figure 13), wherein the tool body of the alignment a closed end (20, 125), the first horn receiving opening is formed through the closed end (Figures 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 16, Joseph discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the closed end extends over the spray orifice such that the tool body overlaps with the spray orifice (Figure 12, Portion 20 of the closed end extends over and overlaps the spray orifice).
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) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krayer in view of Jenkins (GB313122).
Regarding claim 2, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the system further comprising:
an indicator formed on one of the alignment tool and the spray gun;
a series of indicia formed on the other one of the alignment tool and the spray gun;
wherein the indicator aligns with one of the series of indicia to indicate the angular orientation.
Jenkins discloses a sprayer that includes an indicator (106) and a series of indicia (107), wherein the indicator aligns with one of the series of indicia to indicate the angular orientation (Page 3, lines 45-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krayer with the disclosures of Jenkins providing the system to include includes an indicator (Jenkins, 106) and a series of indicia (Jenkins, 107), wherein the indicator aligns with one of the series of indicia to indicate the angular orientation (Jenkins, Page 3, lines 45-51), in order to provide for rapid setting of the gun to the desired position, as disclosed by Jenkins (Page 3, lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the indicator formed on one of the alignment tool and the spray gun, and the series of indicia formed on the other one of the alignment tool and the spray gun since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Krayer in view of Jenkins discloses the system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the indicator is formed on the alignment tool.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the indicator formed on the alignment tool, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Krayer.
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses a system for adjusting an angular orientation of a spray pattern, the system comprising:
a spray gun (1) configured to emit spray fluid along a spray axis (Abstract), the spray gun comprising:
a gun body (3);
an air cap assembly (80, 20) mounted to the gun body, the air cap assembly comprising:
an air cap (96) having a first air horn (right air horn 98) extending axially from the air cap (Figure 3) and spaced radially from a spray orifice (104) of the spray gun through which spray fluid is emitted at the angular orientation (Column 11, lines 55-59);
an alignment tool (124, 20) including a first horn receiving opening (98), the alignment tool configured to engage with the first air horn at the first horn receiving opening (Column 10, lines 20-28);
wherein the alignment tool is rotatable about an axis to exert a rotational force on the air cap by the engagement between the first air horn and the alignment tool to change an angular position of the air cap and thereby change the angular orientation (The tool rotates the cap onto the container), but fails to disclose the system including an air cap housing connected to the gun body to secure the air cap to the gun body.
Krayer discloses a system comprising an air cap housing (11) connected to the gun body (Figure 4) to secure an air cap to a gun body (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joseph with the disclosures of Krayer, providing the device of Joseph to further include an air cap housing (Krayer, 11) to secure the air cap to the gun body, as the configurations were known alternatives to connect the air cap, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including security of the air cap in a system where the housing structure is not a critical element.
Regarding claim 17, Joseph in view of Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the alignment tool includes a tool body (Figure 13), the tool body extending at least partially around the air cap housing (As modified, Krayer, Figure 3) with the alignment tool mounted to the spray gun (Krayer, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Joseph in view of Krayer discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the tool body extends over the spray orifice (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Joseph in view of Krayer discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the spray axis extends through the tool body with the alignment tool mounted to the spray gun (Figure 2, The spray axis extends through portion 20 of the tool body).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krayer in view of Hartle (US 6,460,787).
Regarding claim 20, Krayer discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to discloses wherein the spray gun is an air assisted airless spray gun.
Hartle discloses an improved spray gun with which the cap may be used that may operate as an air spray gun or airless spray gun (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Krayer with the disclosures of Hartle, replacing the air spray gun of Krayer with the modular spray gun of Hartle, in order to provide for a device configured to operate in a variety of selectable modes and processes, as disclosed by Hartle (Abstract).
Conclusion
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