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 response filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims and one page of amended abstract were received on 4/15/2026. The abstract has been amended such that it is no longer objected to. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 13 have been amended. Claim 11 has been cancelled and Claim 14 is newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the non-final rejection mailed 12/15/2025. Claim 1 is objected to, Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Ferromagnetic Element Species A and Loss Prevention Device Sub-Species A (Fig. 3) in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 8/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4 and 10 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 13, “sprayinq edge” should be revised to “spraying edge” to ensure proper spelling.
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.
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.
The claims contain the following terms that that use the word “means” with functional language:
The “means of at least one loss prevention device” in Claim 8.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “means of at least one loss prevention device” in Claim 8 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 6 Lines 2-4 of the Specification which states, “the loss prevention device can be formed by an elastic element”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “means of at least one loss prevention device” in Claim 8 to be an elastic element and equivalents thereof.
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:
The “means of a tool gripping the at least one shoulder” in Claim 1, which recites sufficient structure of a tool.
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
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein the bell body extends between a proximal end and the leading edge” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the leading edge” in the claim. It is not clear if “the leading edge” is the same as “the spraying edge” in Claims 1 and 14 or if it is a separate feature of the bell body. For the purpose of examination, Claim 14 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein the bell body extends between a proximal end and the spraying edge”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-202021105086-U1 to Planert (“Planert”) in view of US PGPUB 2001/0015386 A1 to Pruss (“Pruss”).
As to Claim 1, Planert discloses a rotary atomizer for coating components (See Fig. 3) comprising:
a bell cup shaft (#3) and a spray bell (#4) that is regionally insertable into the bell cup shaft and releasably attached to the bell cup shaft (See Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0007), wherein the spray bell includes at least one ferromagnetic element or at least one permanent magnetic element (See ferromagnetic element #11 in Fig. 3 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0025) and the bell cup shaft includes at least one permanent magnetic element or at least one ferromagnetic element (See permanent magnetic element #7 in Fig. 3 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0022) that are arranged in relation to one another such that the at least one ferromagnetic element and the permanent magnetic element exert a magnetic retaining force on one another acting parallel to an axis of rotation of the bell cup shaft in order to releasably retain the spray bell on the bell cup shaft (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0020), wherein the bell cup shaft includes a conical receiving portion facing the spray bell and the spray bell includes a conical insertion portion facing the bell cup shaft (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0011-0012), wherein the conical insertion portion has an inclination of 1° to 10°,relative to an axis of rotation of the spray bell (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0011), wherein the spray bell includes a bell body that increases in diameter towards a spraying edge (See Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert does not disclose wherein the bell body includes at least one shoulder on its outer surface, and wherein the at least one shoulder is configured such that the spray bell can be detached from the bell cup shaft by means of a tool gripping the at least one shoulder (See Annotated Fig. 3, the bell body does not have a shoulder configured to be detached by a tool that grips the shoulder).
However, Pruss discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating (See Paragraph 0001), a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) comprising a spray bell (#3) that includes a bell body (#37 and #32) that increases in diameter towards a spraying edge (#32), wherein the bell body includes at least one shoulder on its outer surface (See an exterior on #32 in Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one shoulder is configured such that the spray bell can be detached from a bell cup shaft (#1) by means of a tool gripping the at least one shoulder (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0031, the shoulder at #32 is configured on #3 such that #3 can be pulled away from #1 by some tool that grips #32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray bell of the rotary atomizer of Planert as applied to Claim 1 above such that the bell body includes the at least one shoulder of Pruss on its outer surface by utilizing the bell body geometry of #37 and #32 of Pruss, since it doing so would yield the predictable result of helping guide the bell body when assembling the rotary atomizer (See Pruss Paragraph 0029), while allowing coating product to be distributed by centrifugation (See Pruss Paragraph 0026). Such a modification would result in the at least one shoulder being configured such that the spray bell can be detached from the bell cup shaft by means of a tool gripping the at least one shoulder (See Pruss Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0031 and See Planert Annotated Fig. 3, the shoulder at #32 in Pruss is configured on #3 such that #3 can be pulled away from #1 by some tool that grips #32. Implementing the shoulder #32 into the spray bell of Planert will result in the spray bell being capable of being detached by the bell cup shaft by some tool that grips the shoulder).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert further discloses wherein the at least one ferromagnetic element is a ring provided on a side of the spray bell facing the bell cup shaft (See Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0019-0020).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert further discloses wherein the at least one permanent magnet element includes an annular permanent magnetic element (See Annotated Fig. 3, the permanent magnetic ring is annular), wherein the bell cup shaft includes a central recess on a side facing the spray bell, wherein the annular permanent magnetic element is fixed within the central recess (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0009).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert further discloses wherein the at least one permanent magnet element includes an annular permanent magnetic element (See Annotated Fig. 3, the permanent magnetic ring is annular), wherein the bell cup shaft is a hollow shaft including a shoulder on a side facing the spray bell comprising an axial contact surface facing away from the spray bell against which the annular permanent magnetic element is resting (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0010).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert further discloses wherein the conical receiving portion and the conical insertion portion are adapted to one another such that there is an axial air gap of less than 2 mm, between the at least one ferromagnetic element and the at least one permanent magnetic element when the spray bell is attached in the bell cup shaft (See Annotated Fig. 3 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert further discloses wherein the spray bell is attached to the bell cup shaft by means of at least one loss prevention device (See #16 in Fig. 3 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0023 and 0025).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 8 above, Planert further discloses wherein the at least one loss prevention device is formed by an elastic element, radially provided between the spray bell and the bell cup shaft (See #16 in Fig. 3 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0023 and 0025).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 9 above, Planert further discloses wherein the elastic element comprises an O-ring or a spring lock washer (See #16 in Fig. 3 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0023 and 0025).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 7 above, Planert further discloses wherein the axial air gap is less than 1 mm (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Planert in view of Pruss as applied to Claim 1 above, Planert as modified by Pruss further discloses wherein the bell body extends between a proximal end and a leading edge (See Planert Annotated Fig. 3, the bell body extends between the proximal end and the spraying edge), wherein the proximal end is proximate the conical insertion portion (See Planert Annotated Fig. 3), and wherein the at least one shoulder is positioned closer to the spraying edge than to the proximal end (See Pruss Fig. 1, the shoulder #32 is positioned at the spraying edge).
PNG
media_image1.png
955
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PGPUB 2011/0000974 A1 to Nolte et al. discloses a spray bell #5 shown in Fig. 3C having a shoulder #8. US PGPUB 2021/0394206 A1 to Perinet et al. discloses a spray bell #6 shown in Fig. 2 having a shoulder #66.
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights