DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the apparatus” is believed to be in error for --the spray apparatus--; “when in the second dose position” is believed to be in error for --when in the first dose position--; “the plural component material” is believed to be in error for --plural component material--; “the reset position” is believed to be in error for --a reset position--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the solvent pathway” is believed to be in error for --the solvent passage--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 20, 23, 28, 31, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson 8,297,531.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Anderson teaches (particularly in figures 2 and 3) a spray apparatus (10), the apparatus comprising: a sprayer body (outer body as shown in figure 4); a mix chamber supported by the sprayer body (mix chamber 26); a purge air pathway (passageway leading to 32 in figure 2) extending to an inlet port of the mix chamber (port between 32 and 30 in figure 2) to provide purge air to the mix chamber (Col. 2, ll. 32-37); a control piston at least partially disposed in the sprayer body (piston surrounding 22 in figures 2 and 3 as shown in figure 2 below), the control piston actuatable along an axis between: a first control position associated with a purge mode in which the control piston causes component flowpaths to be fluidly disconnected from the mix chamber (non-spraying in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 27-29); and a second control position associated with a spray mode in which the control piston causes the component flowpaths to fluidly connect to the mix chamber (spraying in figure 3, Col. 2, ll. 27-29); and a dose piston (22) at least partially disposed within the sprayer body (dose piston 22 shown within body in figures 2 and 3), the dose piston actuatable between :a first dose position associated with emission of purge air from the mix chamber (non-spraying position of figure 2), the dose piston configured to provide solvent to the purge air pathway when in the second dose position (interpreted as first dose position to follow antecedence, where solvent from solvent inlet 28 enters 30 before passing to 26 in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 27-37); and a second dose position associated with emission of the plural component material from the mix chamber (second position in figure 3, Col. 2, ll. 27-37), the dose piston fluidly connected to a solvent passage when in the reset position (figure 2 position acts as reset position where 28 is connected to 22); wherein the control piston shifts in a first axial direction along the axis from the first control position to the second control position, the control piston shifts in a second axial direction opposite the first axial direction from the second control position to the first control position, the dose piston shifts in the first axial direction from the second dose position to the first dose position, and the dose piston shifts in the second axial direction from the first dose position to the second dose position (both pistons shown shifting along an axial direction between first positions of figure 2 and second positions of figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Anderson teaches the dose piston (22) is at least partially disposed within the control piston (as shown in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Anderson teaches the dose piston is fully disposed within the control piston (22 fully within control piston in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Anderson teaches that the dose piston head (at 22a) is disposed within a control piston head of the control piston (portion of control piston surrounding 22a in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Anderson teaches the solvent passage (28) includes at least one passage formed within the control piston (passage through control piston connected to 28 in figure 2 above where the passages are aligned in the radial direction).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Anderson teaches a solvent groove extending into an exterior surface of the control piston shaft, wherein an inlet of the at least one passage is at least partially disposed in the solvent groove (passage and groove in control piston in figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Anderson
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Anderson teaches a control piston shaft of the control piston is at least partially disposed in a piston bore within the sprayer body (portion of control piston including groove and passage in figure 2 above within a bore of surrounding body); and a dose piston shaft of the dose piston is at least partially disposed in a shaft bore within the control piston shaft (portion of dose piston surrounded by passage of control piston away from 22a in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, Anderson teaches a holding groove is formed in a surface of the control piston shaft defining the shaft bore (groove shown at 24 on control piston in figure 2 above), the holding groove fluidly connected to a solvent source (Col. 2, ll. 32-37, where it is not claimed that the groove is always in fluid connection with the solvent source).
Regarding Dependent Claim 28, Anderson teaches the control piston is configured to travel a first distance relative to the spray housing between the first control position and the second control position (distance control piston travels axially between figures 2 and 3); the dose piston is configured to travel a second distance relative to the spray housing between the first dose position and the second dose position (distance dose piston 22 travels axially between figures 2 and 3); and the first distance is larger than the second distance (first distance shown as greater than second distance between figures 2 and 3 as can be seen as greater movement of control piston and seals near base 22a of dose piston).
Regarding Dependent Claim 31, Anderson teaches a trigger supported by the sprayer body, the trigger operatively connected to an air control valve to direct pressurized air to control actuation of the control piston (figures 4-6 show that a trigger will be connected to an air control valve); and a handle extending from the sprayer body (figures 4-6 show a handle allowing the spray gun to be held and the trigger pulled).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Anderson
In regards to Independent Claim 33, Anderson teaches a spray apparatus (10) comprising: a control piston (control piston in figure 2 above) operatively connected to a spray valve to actuate the spray apparatus between a spray state and a purge state (trigger and awl as shown in figure 4 will act to actuate dosing pump shown in figures 2 and 3), wherein spray material is emitted from a spray orifice with the spray apparatus in the spray state (spraying in figure 3) and purge air is emitted from the spray orifice with the spray apparatus in the purge state (non-spraying in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 27-37); and a dose piston carried by the control piston and actuatable between a first dose position and a second dose position (dose piston in figure 2 above, with positions in figures 2 and 3), wherein the dose piston is configured to pick up a volume of solvent in the second dose position (non-spraying position in figure 2, Col. 2, ll. 27-32) and the dose piston is configured to dose the volume of solvent into the purge air in the first dose position (spraying position in figure 3, Col. 2, ll. 32-37); wherein the dose piston moves in an opposite direction from the spray piston along an actuation axis as the spray apparatus transitions between the spray state and the purge state (dose piston moves opposite control piston as shown in figures 2 and 3, Col. 2, ll. 32-37 describes air pressing against front 22b of dose piston to drive it opposite control piston).
In regards to Independent Claim 36, Anderson teaches a method of spraying (steps shown in different positions of figures 2 and 3), the method comprising: placing a spray applicator in a spray mode (spraying mode of figure 3), wherein a first material pathway and a second material pathway are fluidly connected to a mix chamber (26) with the spray applicator in the spray mode (Col. 1, ll. 29-33); emitting, by the spray applicator (10), a plural component material formed within the mix chamber by a first base component material provided to the mix chamber through the first material pathway and a second base component material provided to the mix chamber through the second material pathway (Col. 2, ll. 12-20); actuating a control piston in a first axial direction along an actuation axis to fluidly disconnect the first material pathway and the second material pathway from the mix chamber and to fluidly connect a purge air pathway with the mix chamber (control position moved to position in figure 2, non-spraying, which connects purge air 32 to 26, Col. 2, ll. 32-37), thereby placing the spray applicator in a purge mode (mode of figure 2); and actuating a dose piston (dose piston 22 in figure 2 above) in a second axial direction along the actuation axis to entrain a dose of solvent picked up from a location within the control piston into a purge air flow flowing axially through the dose piston and the control piston to be carried to the mix chamber by the purge air flow (Col. 2, ll. 27-37), the second axial direction opposite the first axial direction (dose piston moves opposite control piston as shown in figures 2 and 3, Col. 2, ll. 32-37 describes air pressing against front 22b of dose piston to drive it opposite control piston).
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) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zittel 7,694,893.
Regarding Dependent Claim 30, Anderson teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Anderson does not teach a spray lock that locks the control piston in the first control position without locking the dose piston. Zittel teaches using a lock (4) that locks an axial piston (15) without restricting components within the piston (such as 19 as shown in exploded view of figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the lock of Zittel to lock only the control piston of Anderson, in order to prevent activation of the spray gun to make the spray gun safer (Col. 2, ll. 57-58).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claim 28 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 29, Anderson teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Anderson further teaches the dose piston is configured to travel a third distance relative to the control piston between the first and second dose positions (dose piston 22 moves opposite control piston a third distance that is approximately equal to the second distance as shown in the translation of the dose piston 22 within the control piston in figures 2 and 3, which is shown as less than the third distance). However, Anderson does not teach that the third distance is greater than the second distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (in this case, choosing a greater distance from the finite options of a third distance that is the same, greater than, or less than the second distance), with a reasonable expectation of success (allowing fluid to press surface 22b of dose piston 22) because it does no more than yield predictable results (allows actuation of dose piston 22 by application of fluid to surface 22b). MPEP 2143 I E.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 9, the first displacement passage in fluid communication with the first sub-chamber and with the reset chamber, and the second displacement passage in fluid communication with the second sub-chamber and with the dose chamber; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 15, the first displacement passage providing motive fluid from a chamber on a first axial side of the control piston head to a chamber on a second axial side of the dose piston head; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 24, that the carrying groove is disposed axially between a first and second dosing seal supported by the dose piston shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights