DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 08 October 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 49-57, 59-60, and 62-69 are currently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 62 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the third line, “an a second O-ring seal” should read --a second O-ring seal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive unit” in claim 49.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Namely, the drive unit is interpreted to be structured as “an electric motor, an electric turbine…and/or an air turbine” as defined in the Specification on page 2, lines 14-16.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of the bell cup” in claim 53.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 56-57 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.
12. Regarding claim 56, the limitations “the first section” and “the second section” lack antecedent basis in the claim, as these elements were introduced as an optional alternative in claim 55. Because it is unclear where the intermediate gap would be disposed in such an instance without a second section, the claim is indefinite.
13. Regarding claim 57, the limitation “the second section” similarly lacks antecedent basis as dependent upon indefinite claim 56. Because it is unclear where the at least one elastic loading element would be disposed in such an instance without a second section, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claims 49-57, 59-60, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt (US 4776520 A) in view of Bazergui (US 20130015264 A1).
16. Regarding claims 49-52, Merritt teaches an apparatus (improved rotary atomizing apparatus, col 1 lines 6-8), comprising:
- a rotatable bell cup (FIG. 2, cup-shaped rotary atomizer bell 98, col 4 lines 1-18),
- a hollow drive shaft (FIG. 2, tubular shaft 82) for driving the bell cup (bell is threadably attached directly onto the front of the rotor 84, col 5 lines 30-48),
- a static inner pipe (fluid inlet 60 secured in the main housing by retainer 126, col 4 lines 22-37), separate from the hollow drive shaft (fluid inlet 60 extends axially through the main housing 72 and tubular shaft 82, col 4 lines 22-37), positioned inside the drive shaft (FIG. 2, fluid inlet 60 inside shaft 82) for supplying the liquid to the bell cup (fluid inlet 60 terminates in an orifice 124 that directs a stream of paint axially into the paint cup, col 4 lines 22-37), and
- a housing (FIG. 2, center body 22 comprises a support tube 46 and an outer tubular cover 50) in which a drive unit for driving the drive shaft is accommodated and the drive shaft is accommodated (FIG. 2, tubular shaft 82 and rotor 84 of an air driven turbine accommodated inside housing 72), wherein
- the static inner pipe extends through the drive unit (FIG. 2, fluid inlet 60 extends through driving rotor 84),
- the drive shaft is provided with a labyrinth seal (labyrinth seal 128 in a forward end of the shaft, col 4 lines 33-37, FIG. 2), in order to prevent unwanted penetration of liquid into the housing (to inhibit a flow of paint from the paint cup to between the fluid inlet and shaft, col 4 lines 33-37).
Merritt does not teach a plurality of cooling ribs (claim 49) that extend laterally outwards from the housing and/or are uniformly spaced from each other in a circumferential direction of the housing (claim 50), extend laterally outside along and/or parallel to the drive shaft (claim 51), and extend laterally outside along the drive unit (claim 52).
Bazergui teaches an analogous rotary atomizer (pars 0010-0012, FIG. 1) powered by an electrical motor (pars 0020-0022) wherein the motor housing may have a plurality of cooling fins distributed evenly along its periphery (par 0026). The fins are pictured as extending laterally outwards from the motor housing (FIG. 1, fins 122) outside of the drive shaft (FIG. 1, shaft 108) and along the drive unit (FIG. 1, magnet rotor 104 and stator 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the air drive system of Merritt with an electric motor having a housing surrounded by a plurality of cooling ribs as taught by Bazergui. Doing so would predictably provide a controllably powered drive for the rotary atomizer, as Bazergui teaches that the particular motor can improve reliability and speed while providing the ability to dynamically direct and adjust gas stream velocity (Bazergui par 0010), the cooling ribs effectively removing excess electrical heat (Bazergui par 0012). See MPEP 2143(I)(B) re: the substitution of art-recognized equivalent drive units, MPEP 2143(I)(A) re: the combination with cooling ribs.
The limitation for atomising a disinfectant in the second line, and recitations of a disinfectant throughout, describe an intended use of the rotatable bell cup apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight as the disinfectant is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does", see MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Merritt contemplates flushing the rotary atomizer with a cleaning fluid (col 3 lines 1-16), thus the atomizer would be capable of performing the intended use of atomizing a disinfectant.
17. Regarding claim 53, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 52, characterized in that the apparatus comprises at least one blower for generating a gas flow (shroud air ring 142 to generate air curtain, Merritt col 4 line 68 to col 5 line 20) in order to transport and/or distribute disinfectant atomised by means of the bell cup in the room (to shape the spray pattern and carry atomized paint particles toward the article, Merritt col 5 lines 16-20).
18. Regarding claim 54, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 53, wherein gas guiding channels serve for guiding of the gas flow (air flows through the passages 152, Merritt col 5 lines 5-20). The combination does not teach that gas guiding channels are disposed between cooling ribs.
Bazergui further teaches a feed tube (FIG. 1, 132), an air cooling feed (FIG. 1, 120), and a compressed air conduit (FIG. 1, 126 and 108) that are disposed between the cooling fins considering that the fins are distributed evenly along its periphery (par 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to route the gas guiding channels of modified Merritt between the cooling ribs as taught by Bazergui. Doing so would predictably enable the gas to reach the nozzle (Bazergui par 0020) while cooling the motor stator (Bazergui par 0012) with a reasonable expectation of success, as Bazergui teaches that various conduits would be disposed in the ample space between the cooling ribs for this same purpose. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
19. Regarding claim 55, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 54, wherein the labyrinth seal is configured as a contactless labyrinth seal (Merritt FIG. 2, labyrinth seal 128 closely surrounds the orifice, col 4 lines 33-37). The limitations wherein the labyrinth seal - comprises a first section rotatable with the drive shaft and a second static section and - performs its sealing function not until and/or only when the drive shaft rotates are interpreted as alternatives that are not required by the claim, being linked by the conjunction “and/or”.
20. Regarding claim 56, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 55. Although Examiner notes that the first section and second section are not required by antecedent claim 55, an intermediate gap is disposed between the labyrinth seal and the fluid supply axle wherein an air barrier is formed in the intermediate gap by rotation of the first section (Merritt FIGS. 2-3, labyrinth seal 128 and orifice end of fluid supply member 60); and - the first section and the second section do not touch each other (Merritt FIGS. 2-3, labyrinth seal 128 and orifice end of fluid supply member 60).
21. Regarding claim 57, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 56, wherein at least one elastic loading element (Merritt FIG. 2, wave spring 96) is disposed between the second section and a bearing (Merritt FIG. 2, wave spring 96 between intersection of shaft 60/labyrinth seal 128 and bearing 78) accommodated in the housing (spacer 94 that are urged apart and against the bearings by a wave spring 96 to preload the bearings 80, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68) for rotatably mounting the drive shaft in order to act on the bearing (bearings support a tubular shaft 82, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68).
22. Regarding claim 59, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 49, wherein the inner pipe comprises a first portion and a second portion (Merritt FIG. 2, first portion includes orifice 124 and second portion includes fluid pipe 60), wherein - the first portion has an outlet opening for the disinfectant (Merritt FIG. 2, terminates in an orifice 124 that directs a stream…axially into the cup, Merritt col 4 lines 29-37), and - the second portion has an entrance opening for the disinfectant (Merritt FIG. 2, fluid pipe 60 connection to fluid line 62, Merritt col 3 lines 30-32), runs between the drive unit (Merritt FIG. 2, fluid pipe 60 between at least rotor 84) and is carried in a mount for the housing (Merritt FIG. 2, retainer 126 secures the fluid inlet in the main housing, Merritt col 4 lines 29-37).
23. Regarding claim 60, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 59, wherein the second portion has at least one of the following features:- a second external diameter of the second portion is greater than a first external diameter of the first portion (Merritt FIG. 2, fluid pipe 60 [second portion] tapers to orifice 124 [first portion]),- a second wall thickness of the second portion is greater than a first wall thickness of the first portion (Merritt FIG. 2, fluid pipe 60 [second portion] tapers to orifice 124 [first portion]), - a second passage cross-section of the second portion is greater than a first passage cross- section of the first portion (Merritt FIG. 2, fluid pipe 60 [second portion] tapers to orifice 124 [first portion]).
24. Regarding claim 69, Merritt discloses an apparatus (improved rotary atomizing apparatus, col 1 lines 6-8). The limitation for disinfecting a room describes an intended use of the apparatus. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
The apparatus comprises:
- a rotatable bell cup (FIG. 2, cup-shaped rotary atomizer bell 98, col 4 lines 1-18),
- a hollow drive shaft (FIG. 2, tubular shaft 82) coupled to the bell cup (bell is threadably attached directly onto the front of the rotor 84, col 5 lines 30-48),
a drive unit coupled to the drive shaft and operative to drive the bell cup (FIG. 2, tubular shaft 82 and rotor 84 of an air driven turbine accommodated inside housing 72);
- a housing (casing 7, par 0046, FIG. 1) containing the drive unit and the drive shaft (FIG. 2, tubular shaft 82 and rotor 84 of an air driven turbine accommodated inside housing 72), and
a labyrinth seal positioned on the drive shaft (labyrinth seal 128 in a forward end of the shaft, col 4 lines 29-37), to prevent unwanted penetration of liquid into the housing (to inhibit a flow of paint from the paint cup to between the fluid inlet and shaft, col 4 lines 29-37), wherein the labyrinth seal comprises a first section rotatable with the drive shaft and a second static section (FIG. 3, labyrinth comprises seal 128 and opposing surface of static pipe 60), and at least one elastic loading element disposed between the second section and a bearing (Merritt FIG. 2, wave spring 96 between intersection of shaft 60/labyrinth seal 128 and bearing 78), accommodated in the housing for rotatably mounting the drive shaft (bearings support a tubular shaft 82, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68), in order to act on the bearing in an axial direction (spacer 94 that are urged apart and against the bearings by a wave spring 96 to preload the bearings 80, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68).
The limitation for atomising a disinfectant in the second line, and recitations of a disinfectant throughout, describe an intended use of the rotatable bell cup apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight as the disinfectant is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does", see MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Merritt contemplates flushing the rotary atomizer with a cleaning fluid (col 3 lines 1-16), thus the atomizer would be capable of performing the intended use of atomizing a disinfectant.
Merritt does not teach that the bell cup is driven via the drive shaft, as the turbine rotor 84 is positioned between the shaft 82 and the driven cup 98 (FIG. 2).
Bazergui teaches an analogous rotary atomizer (pars 0010-0012, FIG. 1) powered by an electrical motor (pars 0020-0022) that rotates the vertically installed shaft to rotate the spray disc (pars 0011-0012). With analogous bearings to those of Merritt, Bazergui teaches that the electric motor in concert with a drive shaft/bearings can safely operate at higher RPM to yield increased disc speeds (par 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the air drive system of Merritt with an electric motor to drive the cup via the drive shaft as taught by Bazergui. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantageous condition of safe operation at high RPMs as taught by Bazergui. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The limitation for atomising a disinfectant in the second line, and recitations of a disinfectant throughout, describe an intended use of the rotatable bell cup apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight as the disinfectant is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does", see MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Merritt contemplates flushing the rotary atomizer with a cleaning fluid (col 3 lines 1-16), thus the atomizer would be capable of performing the intended use of atomizing a disinfectant.
25. Claims 62-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt (US 4776520 A) and Bazergui (US 20130015264 A1) as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Greenwood (US 3552652 A).
26. Regarding claim 62, Merritt as modified by Bazergui teaches the apparatus according to claim 60, and Merritt teaches that rotary bearings are sealed by generically described seals to a forward end of the main housing (Merritt col 3 lines 51-68). The combination does not specifically teach wherein - a first O-ring seal is disposed between the mount and the housing, and - a second O-ring seal is disposed between the mount and the inner pipe.
Greenwood teaches an analogous atomizing nozzle with a central supply line and rotating spray cup (col 2 lines 39-75, FIG. 4) with a first o-ring 58 which seals the interface of the outer bearing of the mount with the rotating tube of the rotor housing (col 3 lines 31-42) and a second o-ring 40 which seals the interface of the ball bearings 34/35 with the static tubular neck 18 (col 3 lines 1-25). These o-ring seals are advantageous for providing bias for firm contact between rotating parts (col 3 lines 40-42) and minimize the intrusion of contaminants that might interfere with the proper operation of the bearings (col 3 lines 13-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include between the mount and housing and between the mount and inner pipe of modified Merritt first and second o-ring seals as taught by Greenwood. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantageous function of ensuring firm contact between rotating parts and minimizing intrusion of contaminants as taught by Greenwood.
27. Regarding claim 63, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 62, wherein a static part of the drive unit is provided with a third seal (bearing housing 76 is coaxially within and sealed to a forward end of the main housing, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68). Merritt does not specifically teach that this seal is an o-ring seal, and the combination does not teach that an inner face of the static part of the drive unit is protected by an inner tubular element made of corrosion-resistant plastic or by a corrosion- resistant coating.
Bazergui teaches an additional labyrinth shaft seal where the shaft meets the drive unit housing to prevent ingress of liquid feed into the motor cavity (par 0030, FIG. 1, shaft seal 128), motivating the placement of an analogous o-ring seal to seal the motor cavity at this location. Bazergui further teaches wherein an inner face of the static part of the drive unit is protected by an inner tubular element made of corrosion-resistant plastic (the motor is constructed of a material resistant to corrosion and a good dissipater of heat, such as metals or plastics, par 0020; shaft capable of being rotated by rotating force of rotor/stator denotes contact between shaft and motor, par 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a static part of the motor of modified Merritt with a third o-ring seal as taught by Bazergui, as doing so would predictably seal the motor cavity. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct an inner tubular face of the static part of the drive unit of modified Merritt from a corrosion resistant plastic as taught by Bazergui, as doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial protection from corrosion.
28. Regarding claim 64, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 63, wherein the apparatus has a ring structure (shroud air ring 142, Merritt col 5 lines 5-28, FIG. 2) that is openable (detachable i.e. openable by removing from treaded connection of housing, Merritt col 5 lines 5-28).
29. Regarding claim 65, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 64, wherein the ring structure is openable and/or closable by means of a clamp connection (nut 90 is threaded onto a rearward end of the shaft as a clamped connection to close the bearing housing, Merritt col 3 lines 51-68).
30. Regarding claim 66, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 65, wherein the ring structure has a laterally outwards extending outer face (shroud air ring 142 extending forwardly around the housing and terminating at its forward end in a radially inwardly extending annular lip 144, Merritt col 5 lines 5-28). The limitation in order to conduct further the gas flow laterally outwards describes an intended use of the outer face, therefore does not carry patentable weight (see MPEP 2114(II)), though Examiner notes that the air steering ring of Merritt generates a forwardly moving annular curtain of shroud air around the bell to shape the spray pattern and carry atomized paint particles toward the treated article (Merritt col 5 lines 16-28).
31. Regarding claim 67, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 66, wherein the ring structure comprises a rinsing agent channel (main housing passage 150 and a plurality of shroud air outlet passages 152, Merritt col 5 lines 5-28). The limitation for supplying rinsing agent and for connecting to a rinsing agent line describes an intended use of the rinsing agent channel, though Examiner notes that Merritt contemplates connecting the channel to an inlet line (coupled to a shroud air inlet 148, Merritt col 5 lines) and further contemplates cleaning the device by running a flush through paint channels and control air lines (Merritt col 2 line 67 to col 3 line 20), thus would be capable of performing the claimed operation.
32. Regarding claim 68, Merritt as modified by Bazergui and Greenwood teaches the apparatus according to claim 67, wherein the rinsing agent channel comprises an inlet hole and at least one outlet hole (Merritt FIG. 4, channel 150 connects inlet 148 to outlet holes 152), and - the inlet hole comprises a connecting device for connecting to the rinsing agent line (shroud air inlet 148 depicted as threaded tubing connection, Merritt FIG. 3), and/or - the at least one outlet hole is disposed in an inner face of the ring structure (Merritt FIG. 3, outlet hole 152 depicted in inner face of ring 142) and/or is directed towards the bell cup (air flows through the passages 152 and generates a forwardly moving annular curtain of shroud air around the bell, Merritt col 5 lines 5-28).
Response to Arguments
33. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 26 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 49-57, 59-60, and 62-69 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made over Merritt in view of Bazergui to address the newly recited limitation of a static inner pipe separate from the hollow drive shaft and extending through the drive unit (claims 49 and 69), the change of base reference to Merritt necessitated by the amendments. Examiner clarifies that the inner pipe 60 of Merritt is static and separate from the rotary shaft 82 (FIG. 2) with regard to present claim 49, and that the disposition of labyrinth seal 128 facing the shaft 60 creates a labyrinth for restricted fluid flow therethrough, reading upon the first and second sections comprising the labyrinth seal of present claim 69.
Conclusion
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights