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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 3/11/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments relative to the added claim requirements are noted, but not persuasive as the arguments are directed to newly added claim requirements that are addressed in the prior art rejection that follows.
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(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5451260 by Versteeg et al. with JP2009262012, hereinafter JP 012 taken with US Patent 25644301 by Greenspoon et al. and US 3202360 by O’Brien et al. and further with US Patent Application Publication 20070051827 by Shen et al.
Versteeg discloses a method of applying a coating, the method comprising:
providing a first fluid from a base to a nozzle mounted on the base (See Figure 1 and accompanying text);
operating an actuator of the nozzle to create oscillations that cause the first fluid to flow through an aperture in the plate along a first axial direction of the plate onto a first workpiece (Figure 1, column 3, related to piezoelectrically operated ultrasonic atomizing nozzles, which would reasonably generate oscillations to cause flow through aperture);
Versteeg discloses a ultrasonic atomizing nozzle with an aperture; however, fails to disclose the flow through at least one aperture of a plurality of apertures in a plate as claimed. However, JP 012, also in the art of ultrasonic atomizing nozzles with an aperture for ultrasonic spraying discloses that using a perforated plate with a plurality of injection holes for generating a atomized spray (figures, background art, “nozzle plate (perforated plate) having nozzles (injection holes)”). Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have used the nozzle plate as a known and suitable plate for ultrasonic atomization as Versteeg discloses using ultrasonic spraying and JP 012 discloses a nozzle plate that includes a plurality of nozzles is a well-known nozzle for ultrasonic spraying. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Versteeg discloses atomization through a nozzle and discloses that nozzle clogging is a problem in such ultrasonic atomization nozzles (column 4, lines 55-62); however, fails to disclose reversing an orientation of the plate relative to the base; and operating the actuator so that fluid within the nozzle flows through the aperture along an opposite axial direction of the plate.
However, Greenspoon, also in the art of atomization through a nozzle for spraying and discloses nozzle clogging can be corrected by reversing the nozzle (and thus plate associated with nozzle), see column 2, lines 37-55, and resumption of coating to expel the clog and resume coating operations. Additionally, O’Brien discloses a spray coating mechanism and discloses that when the nozzle orifice becomes clogged, reversing the nozzle tip or orifice member to dislodge the clog and clean and continue operation (column 1, lines 10-25).
Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Versteeg that discloses nozzle clogging to remove or prevent clogging by reversing the nozzle to remove the clog as continue spraying operation as each of Greenspoon and O’Brien individually disclose that nozzles are known to be clogged and to clean/remove the clog, reversing the orientation of the nozzle member (i.e. plate) and continue coating such that the fluid flows through the nozzle in the opposite axial direction. Based on the teachings of Greenspoon and O’Brien one would reasonably expect predictable results in the modification, that is reversing the nozzle so that the fluid flows in the opposite direction and thus removes a clog from the opening.
JP 012 discloses the actuator included in the nozzle structure that includes the nozzle plate and therefore would necessarily be “coupled” to the plate; however, fails to disclose the actuator is coupled between the plate and nozzle and reversing orientation of the nozzle plate such that the actuator and nozzle plate are coupled to the nozzle body claimed.
Shen, which also discloses a nozzle plate for spraying an atomized liquid and discloses a nozzle plate with a plurality of aperture and integrating an actuator with the nozzle plate to control the spray and coupling the actuator between the nozzle body and the plate (see Figured 2a, 2b and accompanying text, claimed actuator as member 40 and plate 50 with apertures at 51, nozzle body 30). Shen discloses the nozzle plate with the piezoelectric to transmit the energy and vibration to the nozzle plate to generate the atomization and reversing the nozzle plate (compare Figures 2a and 2b). Therefore, taking the refences collectively, coupling the actuator to the nozzle plate, including between the nozzle body and the plate, would have been obvious as a known method for spraying an atomized liquid. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
As for coupling while reversing the orientation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the nozzle body, actuator and plate, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Here the Examiner notes the breadth of the claimed “nozzle body” and the scope of this term is broadly drafted and fails to quantify any structure of this nozzle body nor does it define any more than what is explicitly shown in Shen, a ring “30” or some other structure. Note Shen discloses in both orientations, “30” to be coupled to actuator 40 and plate 50 and the vibrating element 40 is between the plate and the nozzle body “30”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1101
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Greenspoon discloses after reversing supplying a second fluid and the actuator causes the second fluid to flow through the aperture (resumption of discharge of fluid at column 4, lines 38-55).
Claim 5: Versteeg and O’Brien discloses coating workpieces and therefore would necessarily include positioning a second workpiece as claimed. At the very least, Versteeg is concerned with coating multiple workpieces (see figures) and it would have been obvious to have provided a second workpiece as claimed to use the spray device as intended.
Claim 7 and 10: Greenspoon discloses operating a control module to control a tool (hand) to perform the step of reversing the nozzle relative to the base in response to the presence of a clog (column 4, lines 38-55). The term automatically does not add patentable weight as the technician can reasonably be considered to automatically reverse the nozzle based on the observation of the blockage. At the very least, automating a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is insufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04III. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to automate the reversing operation, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim 11: While the reference do not disclose reversing at completion of a predetermined coating process, however, the claims as broadly drafted and fail to define the metes and bounds of the term “coating process” and therefore, taking the level of ordinary skill in the art in view of Greenspoon, it would have been obvious to have reversed the nozzle based on the completion of predetermined coating process (i.e. completion of a normal spray without blockage) to reap the benefits of providing a nozzle that is no longer clogged for coating. Additionally, reversing the nozzle to expel any clogs at the “completion” of an undefined coating process would have been obvious as the ordinary artisan would recognize the end of a coating process would be one of a finite number of predictable solutions for reversing the nozzle.
Claim 12: Versteeg discloses ultrasonic atomization, which can reasonably read on the claimed oscillation.
Claim 13: Greenspoon disclose reversing the nozzle by unscrewing the nozzle from a base, reversing the orientation of the nozzle body with respect to the plate and thereafter screwing the nozzle body in the reversed orientation (Greenspoon at column 2, lines 38-56).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 9, 10-11, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen taken with JP 60012155, hereinafter JP 155.
Claims 2-3: Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen discloses all that is taught above and discloses reversing the nozzle in response to the determination of a nozzle blockage; however, fails to disclose the detection is fluid pressure as claimed. However, JP 155, also in the art of spray coating discloses providing a sensor and a control apparatus that includes determining a clog in the nozzle based on the supply pressure of the fluid. Therefore, as Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al discloses reversing the nozzle based on a clog, it would have been obvious to have included a sensor and control apparatus to determine the presence of a clog based on the fluid pressure.
Claims 7, 9, 10-11 and 14-15: Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen and further with JP 155 discloses all that is taught above and are applied here for the same reasons as set forth above. Greenspoon discloses operating a control module to control a tool (hand) to perform the step of reversing the nozzle relative to the base in response to the presence of a clog (column 4, lines 38-55). The term automatically does not add patentable weight as the technician can reasonably be considered to automatically reverse the nozzle based on the observation of the blockage. At the very least, automating a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is insufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04III. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to automate the reversing operation, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claims 16-17: JP 155 makes obvious such for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2-3.
Claim 19: Greenspoon disclose reversing the nozzle by unscrewing the nozzle from a base, reversing the orientation of the nozzle body with respect to the plate and thereafter screwing the nozzle body in the reversed orientation (Greenspoon at column 2, lines 38-56).
Claim 20: The limitations of these claims are a combination of limitations that are specifically addressed above with respect to claims. As for the requirement “between an outer edge of the plate and an inner surface of a nozzle body, such an arrangement is taught by Shen (see e.g. annotated figure 2A and 2B above where the actuator is between the outer edge and “an inner surface” as claimed).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen taken with EP 2508267, hereinafter EP 267.
Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen discloses all that is taught above and discloses reversing the nozzle to expel the clog; however, fails to disclose flushing nozzle with a cleaning fluid. However, EP 267, also in the art of reversible nozzle for remedying clogs discloses that is known in the art to flush nozzles with a solvent for cleaning (technical area) and therefore using this known technic would have been obvious as predictable to reap the benefits of using a known and suitable method for nozzle clog remediation.
Additionally, and alternatively discloses after reversing flushing the nozzle with a fluid that will remove the clog (and thus reads on the broadly drafted “cleaning fluid” as it functions to clean) and thereafter operating the spray to coat an additional substrates (See entire reference, page 6). Therefore it would have been obvious to have modified Versteeg et al. taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. to flush with a cleaning fluid to eject the clog prior to coating.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen each taken with JP 155 each as applied to claim 7 above and further with taken with WO 2014206574, hereinafter WO 574.
Versteeg et al. with JP 012 taken with Greenspoon et al. and O’Brien et al. with Shen taken with JP 155 each as applied to claim 7 above discloses all that is taught above. Greenspoon discloses changing the nozzle by the operator and therefore the references fail to disclose using a robotic arm. However, WO 574 discloses detaching nozzles from device and discloses that the nozzles can be adjusted by the operator or via a robotic arm (see Description, page 3 related to gripper robot). As such, using a robot arm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as such is taught as a known alternative to the operator for the adjustment of parts of a nozzle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights