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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 20210221162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima discloses an applicator (figure 1) comprising:
a coating liquid tank that is a flexible container deformed when pressed by a finger of a user (item 10, figure 1A);
a front barrel fixed to the coating liquid tank and including a discharge port configured to discharge a coating liquid (item 24, figure 1A);
an application portion fixed to the front barrel (item 12, figure 1A);
and a valve mechanism communicating the coating liquid tank and the application portion (item 14, figure 1B),
wherein the valve mechanism includes at least two valve mechanisms of an intake valve (items 20 and 22, figure 1B) and a liquid discharge valve (items 16 and 18, figure 1B),
the intake valve mechanism includes a valve rod (item 16, figure 1B) and a second valve container (item 22, figure 1B),
air is allowed to be intaken through a gap between the valve rod and the second valve container when an inside of the coating liquid tank is at negative pressure (δ, figure 3; ¶ [0059]),
the liquid discharge valve mechanism includes the intake valve mechanism and a first valve container (item 18, figure 1B),
and a coating liquid is allowed to flow through a gap between the intake valve mechanism and the first valve container when the inside of the coating liquid tank is at a positive pressure (¶ [0064] – ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima discloses the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the valve mechanism includes the first spring (item 32, figure 1B), the second valve container (item 22, figure 1B), and the valve rod (item 16, figure 1B) coaxially disposed in the first valve container (item 18, figure 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima discloses the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the applicator includes a storage body in the front barrel (items 28 and 26, figure 1B) and has a function of suppressing a flow of a coating liquid discharged from the valve mechanism and suppressing an amount of a coating liquid flowing to the application portion (¶ [0065]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Teichmann (DE 4408357 A1; translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima discloses the applicator according to claim 1, wherein the liquid discharge valve mechanism includes a first spring configured to urge a gap between the second valve container and the first valve container to be closed (item 32, figure 1B).
However, Nakajima does not teach a second spring configured to urge a gap between the valve rod and the second valve container to be closed.
Teichmann discloses a valve mechanism for a container (figure X) wherein the valve mechanism includes a second spring (item 96, figure X) configured to urge a gap between the valve rod (item 88, figure X) and the second valve container (item 72, figure X) to be closed (¶ [0017]),
and an urging force of the second spring is set to operate at least at atmospheric pressure (¶ [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
was made to have provided the applicator of Nakajima with the second spring configured to urge a gap between the valve rod and second valve container to be closed as taught by Teichmann in order to secure against overpressure or under pressure (¶ [0002] and ¶ [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 is allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
The prior art of record do not teach an applicator “wherein a stirring rod slidable in a front-rear direction is disposed in front of a coaxial line of the valve rod of the liquid discharge valve mechanism, and the stirring rod is contactable with the valve rod” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J ARIF whose telephone number is (571)272-9620. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Paul R Durand can be reached at (571)272-4459. 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.
/NOAH JACOB ARIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 14, 2026
