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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 13-22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a central flow path” in ln. 20 should be revised to “the central flow path”.
“an annular flow path” in ln. 20-21 should be revised to “the annular flow path”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a truncated cone” in ln. 2 should be revised to “the truncated cone”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 13-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet of the mixing nozzle" in ln. 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an outlet of the mixing nozzle” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 8, and 13-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an open area of the mixing nozzle" in ln. 3-4. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the open area of the mixing nozzle previously recited in claim 1, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the open area of the mixing nozzle previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rotating member" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a rotating member” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the extended central axis" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an extended central axis” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 3, which is now canceled. Claim 18 is dependent from claim 17. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, Kishimoto et al. (US 20100307408 A1), fail to teach, disclose, or suggest a coating liquid mixing device comprising a mixing nozzle communicating with an outlet of the supply tube so that the coating liquids flowing through the plurality of flow paths are supplied to an interior space, the mixing nozzle including a reduced diameter portion in which an inner diameter of the interior space is reduced toward an outlet of the coating liquid mixing device so that an open area of the mixing nozzle is smaller than a total open area of the plurality of flow paths, an open area at the outlet of the mixing nozzle is smaller than an open area at an outlet of the central flow path, and wherein the reduced diameter portion is located radially inward than an outer periphery of the annular flow path and guides the coating liquid ejected from the annular flow path toward radially inward, in combination with other limitations recited in the claims.
Other related art, such as Wurz (US 20100219268 A1) and Cairo (US 20070246575 A1), do teach the mixing nozzle including a reduced diameter portion in which an inner diameter of the interior space is reduced toward an outlet of the coating liquid mixing device so that an open area of the mixing nozzle is smaller than a total open area of the plurality of flow paths, and the reduced diameter portion is located radially inward than an outer periphery of the annular flow path and guides the coating liquid ejected from the annular flow path toward radially inward.
However, adding these features to Kishimoto would defeat the intended use of Kishimoto’s invention. For instance, Kishimoto has a mixing nozzle 22, 23 with an interior space 24. These structures permit a rotary atomization head 20 to attach to the interior space 24 and rotate (Kishimoto, Paragraph 0051). Adding the mixing nozzle 7 in Wurz or the mixing nozzle 10 in Cairo to Kishimoto’s coating liquid mixing device destroys Kishimoto’s operation because the structures would not allow Kishimoto’s rotary atomization head 20 to attach and rotate as originally intended. The modifications would also be considered hindsight rationale because they are all different structures and one of ordinary skill would not be able to reasonably combine these features without referring to the present invention. It is noted that Kishimoto, Wurz, and Cairo are considered to be the best prior art of record to the present invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights