Details for Patent: 3,927,806

Summary for Patent: 3,927,806

Title:	Applicator for attachment to a spray mist dispenser
Abstract:	An applicator for attachment to a container for aerosol spray under pressure wherein the container is of the type having a dispensing valve provided with a projecting stem which releases a jet of spray upon depression relative to the container. The applicator includes a housing adapted to partially enclose the container and provided with a tubular sidewall surrounding the stem. A spray assembly within the sidewall grips the stem and directs the spray released thereby through a radial port in the sidewall. A sleeve is telescopically mounted on the sidewall for axial motion between a retracted position overlying the radial port and an extended position positioned beyond the sidewall. The sleeve is connected to the sidewall by two ears depending from the sleeve, which are provided at their free ends with two bosses which pass through two aligned axial slots in the sidewall. In the extended position, the bosses enable pivoting motion of the sleeve into concentric alignment with the radial port. Each boss is provided with an enlarged head positioned internally of the sidewall to prevent motion of the boss out of the slot. In the preferred embodiment, the shaping of the ears which depend from the sleeve is such that pivoting of the sleeve when in the extended position is possible only in a direction which will cause concentric alignment with the radial port and furthermore so that when aligned, the sleeve will point slightly upward to aid in dispensing the spray mist.
Inventor(s):	Philip Meshberg
Assignee:	Individual
Application Number:	US426478A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Delivery; Device;

United States Patent 3,927,806 Landscape: What Claims Cover, Claim Scope Boundaries, and Where Similar Spray-Mist Applicators Can Be Designed Around

United States Patent 3,927,806 claims an applicator attachable to a container dispensing valve having a projecting stem that emits a spray jet upon limited axial motion inward of the container. The claimed applicator is an integrated housing and sidewall structure that routes the jet through a radial port, using a telescoping sleeve that pivots only in the direction needed to align with the port, with slot-and-boss anti-extraction geometry and a retracted-sleeve dust/dirt prevention feature.

The patent landscape for this claim architecture clusters around (1) whether the claims require a specific radial port + gripping/direction means arrangement, (2) whether a telescoping sleeve that pivots only toward the radial port is mandatory, and (3) whether the slot/boss engagement that prevents pivot/out-of-slot movement except at full retraction must be replicated.

---

What does US patent 3,927,806 claim for spray-mist applicators?

Claim 1 structure: what the independent claim actually requires

Claim 1 is not a generic “spray attachment.” It is a mechanical assembly with multiple coupled limitations. The scope is broad at the level of function (routing spray, pivoting between stowed and dispensing positions), but narrow at the level of construction (specific elements and their spatial/kinematic relationships).

A. Required environment

1. A container with a dispensing valve having a projecting stem.
2. The stem releases a jet of spray upon limited axial motion of the stem in a direction relatively inward of the container.

B. Required applicator housing 3. A housing adapted to at least partially enclose the container. 4. A tubular sidewall adapted to surround the stem of the dispensing valve. 5. The sidewall has:

• axial outer end spaced remotely from the container
• axial inner end

C. Required jet-routing feature 6. A radial port extending through the sidewall. 7. “Means mounted within said sidewall” that:

• grip the stem of the dispensing valve
• direct the jet released thereby through the radial port

D. Required sleeve/pivot mechanism 8. Two aligned axially extending closed slots through the sidewall:

• at opposite extremities of the sidewall diameter
• arranged such that the diameter is perpendicular to the axis of the radial port

9. Each slot has:
   • an enlarged opening at its inner axial end
10. A sleeve telescopically mounted on the sidewall for axial sliding motion between:
    • retracted position overlying the radial port
    • extended position with at least major portion of the sleeve positioned beyond the outer end of the sidewall
11. Pivot direction constraint by abutting portions
    • “cooperable abutting portions” of sleeve and sidewall are positioned directly above the radial port when the sleeve is extended
    • result: “pivoting of the sleeve is only possible in a direction” aligning it with the radial port
12. Dust/dirt prevention when retracted
    • the end of the sleeve in the retracted position:
      • terminates so it does not extend above the top of the tubular sidewall
      • “thereby preventing dust or dirt collection on the inside of said sleeve”
13. Ears/bosses interface with the closed slots
    • two ears extending from an axially inner end of the sleeve, partially overlapping the slots
    • two bosses projecting from the ears, received in the slots
14. Boss geometry/anti-misassembly limits:
    • bosses abut against closed outer ends of the slots in the extended position, enabling pivot motion into alignment with the radial port
    • each boss has an enlarged head:
      • enlarged head freely passes through the enlarged opening in the slots
      • head overlaps adjacent edges of the slot to prevent boss motion out of the slot except when fully retracted
15. Re-railing stop in dispensing orientation
    • raised surface at lower end of the sidewall below radial port acts as a stop to prevent sleeve sliding in the slots when pivoted to a dispensing position

Claim 2-4 add narrower mechanical variants

• Claim 2: abutting portions are a projecting portion connected with the sidewall directly above the radial port.
• Claim 3: outer end of sidewall essentially flat; abutting portions are a downwardly extending portion of the sleeve abutting the sidewall directly above radial port.
• Claim 4: end of sleeve in closed position is coterminous with the top, forming a smooth surface catching no dirt/dust.

---

Where are the scope boundaries for US 3,927,806 claim 1? (essential vs interchangeable features)

Essential limitation clusters

At infringement analysis level, claim 1 reads as requiring simultaneous presence of three coupled subsystems:

1. Jet routing through a radial port

   • A “radial port extending through said sidewall”
   • “means … to direct the jet … through said radial port” Design-around that eliminates a radial through-port or routes the spray axially would generally avoid the claim’s core routing limitation.

2. Closed-slot telescoping sleeve with constrained pivot direction

   • Two aligned closed slots and a telescoping sleeve carrying ears/bosses
   • Pivot only possible in the direction that aligns with the radial port, achieved by “cooperable abutting portions” directly above the radial port

3. Anti-dust and anti-extraction geometry

   • retracted sleeve does not extend above top
   • bosses prevent leaving slots except at fully retracted state via enlarged head and slot enlarged opening relationship

Potentially less rigid interpretations

Even without construing terms, claim language provides some interpretive flexibility:

• “means mounted within said sidewall adapted to grip… and direct the jet” can cover multiple mechanical/gripping arrangements as long as the functional outcomes are met: gripping the valve stem and directing the jet through the radial port.
• “at least partially enclose the container” allows various enclosure depths.

But the structural/kinematic constraints are repeatedly spelled out in a way courts often treat as limiting.

---

How does the telescoping sleeve and pivot constraint limit claim coverage?

The “pivot only toward the radial port” constraint is a key narrowing element

Claim 1 does not simply require a sleeve that pivots. It requires abutting geometry that makes pivoting possible only in a direction that aligns with the radial port when the sleeve is extended. That is a directional kinematic constraint.

Practical claim consequence

• A sleeve that pivots in both directions, or that uses a different gating mechanism (e.g., detents, friction tabs, asymmetric geometry not described as “cooperable abutting portions… directly above said radial port”) increases non-infringement risk.

Slot-and-boss geometry: why it matters

The sleeve is guided on the sidewall via:

• ears overlapping slots
• bosses in slots with enlarged heads that can pass through enlarged openings during full retraction
• overlap/abutment that prevents boss exit out of slots except fully retracted

This is both:

• an assembly retention feature
• a controlled pivot kinematics feature (boss abutting closed outer ends enabling pivot into alignment)

Design-around that uses different retention (e.g., snap rings or external retainers) and different slot geometry likely avoids meeting “closed slots” and the enlarged-head retention mechanics together.

---

What embodiments do dependent claims 2-4 cover, and do they narrow infringement further?

Claim 2: sidewall projecting portion above radial port

Claim 2 specifies cooperable abutting portions comprising a projecting portion connected with the sidewall directly above the radial port. That adds:

• a specific “sidewall-to-abut” structural contribution If a product uses a sleeve downward abutment instead (Claim 3 type), Claim 2 would not read as cleanly.

Claim 3: downwardly extending sleeve portion, flat sidewall outer end

Claim 3 requires:

• sidewall outer end essentially flat
• abutting portions are downwardly extending from sleeve and abut sidewall directly above radial port

Claim 4: coterminous sleeve top in closed position

Claim 4 specifies the sleeve end is coterminous with the top forming a smooth surface. This narrows to particular dust/dirt prevention geometry.

• If a competitor leaves a gap or uses a different dust cover structure, Claim 4 may be avoided.
• Claim 1 still remains the primary independent hook, so a product could evade Claim 4 while still risking Claim 1.

---

What prior art or similar patented mechanisms does this claim resemble (landscape themes)?

Even without a catalog of citations for 3,927,806 in the prompt, the claim itself identifies recurring prior-art themes in the broader spray applicator and bottle-valve accessory field:

1. Valve-actuated stem pressing adapters
   • Many applicators rely on pushing a valve stem inward to produce spray.
2. Directional outlets via ports
   • Accessories often add angular or offset outlets to change spray direction.
3. Constrained pivoting spray wands
   • Common in nozzle covers that rotate between stowed and dispensing positions.
4. Dust-shedding sleeves
   • Stowed nozzle covers often aim to keep interiors clean.
5. Anti-misassembly retention using oversized heads and slot openings
   • A well-known mechanical retention pattern in sliding/pivot assemblies.

For landscape mapping, treat 3,927,806 as an invention positioned at the intersection of:

• routing through a radial side port
• with a telescoping, pivoting sleeve guided by closed slots and bosses
• and a dust prevention geometry tied to retracted sleeve height relative to sidewall top.

---

Which design-arounds are most likely to avoid claim 1 (based on required limitations)?

High-confidence non-infringement directions

• Remove the radial port and route spray through an outlet that is axially aligned with the stem or uses an angled but non-port-through-sidewall architecture that does not “extend through said sidewall” in the claimed sense.
• Replace the two axially extending closed slots with open-ended channels or external linkage. Claim 1 requires closed slots and specific boss retention against slot ends.
• Use a pivot mechanism that does not rely on “cooperable abutting portions… directly above said radial port” to limit pivot direction.
• Change the retracted sleeve so it extends above the sidewall top, and handle dust with a separate seal cover. Claim 1 requires that termination “does not extend above the top… thereby preventing dust or dirt collection on the inside.”
• Avoid the boss retention mechanism by using a different retention structure not based on “enlarged head… freely pass through enlarged opening” plus overlap preventing motion out except fully retracted.

Partial-coverage risk

Products that preserve:

• radial port routing,
• telescoping sleeve on a tubular sidewall,
• and constrained pivot alignment may still read on Claim 1 even if they vary dust geometry (Claim 4) or the exact abutting portion shape (Claim 2 vs 3).

---

What does the claim imply about infringement of “similar” applicators in the market?

Core infringement test (functional and structural)

A surface-level “pumps spray, has a hinged cover, and keeps dust out” product is unlikely to match Claim 1 unless it also implements:

• a sidewall tubular enclosure around the valve stem,
• a radial through-port,
• a grip/direction means inside the sidewall directing the jet through that radial port,
• and the telescoping/pivot sleeve guided by two closed slots with bosses and enlarged head retention.

Why the slot-and-boss details are a practical barrier

Even if a competitor copies the visual stowed/dispensing sleeve, the exact internal guided mechanics tend to be the easiest to change without impacting market function. That is where claim 1 likely draws its strongest enforcement leverage.

---

How strong is the patent estate around 3,927,806 claims, and what matters for enforcement?

What strengthens enforceability

Within Claim 1, many limitations are:

• physically specific (closed slots, bosses, enlarged openings)
• geometrically tied (radial port alignment, abutment directly above radial port)
• coupled to mechanical results (only pivot direction, stop preventing sliding when pivoted)

These details narrow claim scope and create clear non-infringement paths for altered mechanisms, which can cut both ways:

• In litigation, it can make proof of infringement more technical.
• In portfolio strategy, it provides clear “copy-avoidance” guidance and a strong bargaining position against close design variants.

What weakens broad enforcement

If a competitor’s device routes spray differently, omits radial port, or pivots by another kinematic constraint, Claim 1 becomes harder to assert. Dependent claims 2-4 provide additional narrowing hooks that may matter only for close variants.

---

Patent litigation and Orange Book status?

No information is available in the prompt tying US 3,927,806 to a specific FDA-approved drug, Orange Book listing, or paragraph IV/biosimilar litigation posture. This patent appears to be a mechanical device patent covering an applicator accessory rather than a pharmaceutical composition, so FDA exclusivity frameworks are not directly applicable from the provided material.

---

Key Takeaways

• US 3,927,806 Claim 1 is a tightly coupled mechanical assembly claim covering: valve-stem gripping, radial through-port jet routing, and a telescoping pivot sleeve constrained by abutting portions directly above the radial port.
• The two closed slots and boss/enlarged head retention geometry are central to the claimed sleeve kinematics and anti-misassembly behavior.
• Claims 2-4 narrow the abutting geometry and the dust prevention shape when the sleeve is retracted or closed.
• The most credible design-arounds remove or materially alter the radial port routing, the closed-slot guided sleeve pivot constraint, or the enlarged-head slot retention mechanism.

---

FAQs

1) Can a spray attachment that pivots either direction still infringe US 3,927,806 claim 1?
If the device lacks the claim’s “pivoting… only possible” directional constraint implemented by cooperable abutting portions directly above the radial port when extended, it is less likely to meet Claim 1.

2) Does Claim 1 require the sleeve to telescope both directions?
Claim 1 requires a sleeve telescopically mounted on the sidewall for axial sliding motion between a retracted position overlying the radial port and an extended position beyond the outer end.

3) What does “closed slots” add versus open-ended channels?
Closed slots are explicitly required; the boss abuts closed outer ends in the extended position to enable pivot alignment and the enlarged-head geometry prevents exiting except when fully retracted.

4) If an applicator routes spray through a side outlet but not via a “radial port extending through said sidewall,” does it infringe?
Claim 1 requires a radial port extending through the tubular sidewall and directs the jet through that port. A different routing geometry that omits that structural element reduces infringement risk.

5) How important is the dust prevention feature for infringement of Claim 1?
Claim 1 requires that in the retracted position the sleeve end terminates so it does not extend above the top of the tubular sidewall to prevent dust or dirt collection on the inside. Devices that use alternative dust management may still avoid Claim 1 if they fail this limitation.

---

References

1. U.S. Patent No. 3,927,806 (Spray-mist applicator with telescoping pivot sleeve and radial port routing).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,927,806

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate