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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, and 14 in the reply filed on 8 April 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2,10,13, and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 April 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5,11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kito et al. (WO 2021/149695) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444).
Regarding Claim 1, Kito et al. (WO’695) teach a nanoparticle spray system comprising: a spray nozzle configured to emit a nanoparticle-laden spray flow [0005]; a conveyed substrate (sheet P or belt 5A) configured to be conveyed at a velocity [0017]; and a controller configured to operate in a feedback loop such that nanoparticles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow are controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate (Fig. 1; [0005,0097,0134, 0006]). WO’695 fails to teach an air knife. Miao et al. (CN’444) teach an analogous system for electrostatically spraying particles (powder) onto a substrate [n0002], including a spray nozzle 106 (spray gun) capable of emitting a particle-laden spray flow (Fig. 4;[n0003,n0014]); a conveyed substrate (conveyor belt or conveyed article being coated) capable of being conveyed at a velocity (any conveyance will necessarily be at a velocity) [0022,0059]; and a controller capable of operating in a feedback loop such that particles of the particle-laden spray flow are capable of being controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate, since a sensor measures a distance and sends a signal to automatically start the system [n0058]. In addition, CN’444 teaches an air knife 232 providing controllable air flow in a downward direction to the particle-laden spray flow under control of the controller (since the system starts under the control of the controller) (Fig. 7; [n0020,n0024,n0053,n0058]) to help move particles to a powder suction pipe for powder recovery [n0055, n0059]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of WO’695 with an air knife providing a controllable air flow in a downward direction to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of the controller, because CN’444 suggests an air knife above a conveyed substrate and directed towards a conveying device on which a substrate is conveyed in order to direct powder towards a powder recovery system.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 fails to teach that the airflow includes a component in a direction parallel to flow of the conveyed substrate. However, the airflow would have been expected to have at least some small component of a velocity vector parallel to the conveyed substrate merely because of edge effects of holes in a nozzle of the air knife as the air exits the holes, forming a cone of air. Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the angle of the air knife in order to direct the air where needed in order to guide particles towards a position of the suction pipe.
Regarding Claim 5, WO’695 teaches a heater for adjusting the temperature of nano-particle laden spray flow [0022-0023], and an air knife is an obvious modification (See the rejection of Claim 3 above); therefore, it is apparent that the air knife is capable of providing a heated air flow within the heated environment.
Regarding Claim 11, the spray nozzle is an electrostatic spray nozzle wherein a net charge is induced on the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of the controller [0029,0056-0057].
Regarding Claim 12, WO’695 teaches that the polarity of an electrostatic field generated by an electrode of the electrostatic spray nozzle is unchanged during spray operation (Fig. 15; [0080-0081,0086]).
Regarding Claim 14, an opposite charge of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow is induced on the conveyed substrate during the spray operation [0086,0030].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kito et al. (WO 2021/149695) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishi (US 2021/0291222).
Regarding Claim 6, WO’695 teaches a heater to provide a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow [0022]. The combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 fails to teach a radiant heater. Nishi (US’222) teaches an analogous nanoparticle spray system comprising: a spray nozzle configured to emit a nanoparticle-laden spray flow [0005]; a conveyed substrate (sheet P or belt 5A) configured to be conveyed at a velocity [0017]; and a controller configured to operate in a feedback loop such that nanoparticles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow are controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate (Fig. 1; [0005,0097,0134, 0006]). In addition, US’222 teaches a radiant heater providing a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of a controller, and the radiant heater can shorten the time needed to change the temperature of the nano-particle laden spray flow (Fig. 1; [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 with a radiant heater, because US’222 suggests an analogous apparatus with a radiant heater to modify the temperature and also because US’222 suggests that a radiant heater can shorten the time needed to change the temperature of the nano-particle laden spray flow.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kito et al. (WO 2021/149695) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishi (US 2021/0291222).
Regarding Claim 7, WO’695 teaches a heater to provide a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow [0022]. The combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 fails to teach a radiant heater. Nishi (US’222) teaches an analogous nanoparticle spray system comprising: a spray nozzle configured to emit a nanoparticle-laden spray flow [0005]; a conveyed substrate (sheet P or belt 5A) configured to be conveyed at a velocity [0017]; and a controller configured to operate in a feedback loop such that nanoparticles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow are controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate (Fig. 1; [0005,0097,0134, 0006]). In addition, US’222 teaches a radiant heater providing a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of a controller, and the radiant heater can shorten the time needed to change the temperature of the nano-particle laden spray flow (Fig. 1; [0042]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444, which includes an air knife, with a radiant heater, because US’222 suggests an analogous apparatus with a radiant heater to modify the temperature and also because US’222 suggests that a radiant heater can shorten the time needed to change the temperature of the nano-particle laden spray flow.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kito et al. (WO 2021/149695) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Goller et al. (US 4,175,055).
Regarding Claims 8-9, WO’695 teaches a vacuum having an inlet positioned below a surface of the conveyed substrate [0017]. The combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 fails to teach wherein the conveyed substrate comprises openings through which an air can flow towards the inlet of the vacuum. Goller et al. (US’055) teach an analogous apparatus for coating a substrate, including drawing a vacuum under the substrate, including a “vacuum vessel environment,” to draw powder onto the substrate (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 24-33; col. 4, lines 19-23; col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of WO’695 in view of CN’444 with a vacuum having an inlet positioned below a surface of the conveyed substrate, wherein the conveyed substrate comprises openings through which an air flow, including particles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow, passes in a path towards the inlet of the vacuum in accordance with a controlled suction flow provided by the vacuum under control of the controller, because US’055 suggests such a vacuum positioned below a substrate to draw coating particles onto the surface of a substrate.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (US 2021/0291222) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Nishi (US’222) teaches a nanoparticle spray system comprising: a spray nozzle configured to emit a nanoparticle-laden spray flow (Fig. 1; [0001,0037,0045]; a conveyed substrate (belt 5, substrate P) configured to be conveyed at a velocity (Figs. 1-2; [0051]); and a controller configured to operate in a feedback loop such that nanoparticles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow are controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate [0038,0042,0064,0133].
US’222 teaches a radiant heater providing a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of a controller, and the radiant heater can shorten the time needed to change the temperature of the nano-particle laden spray flow (Fig. 1; [0042]). US’222 fails to teach an air knife. CN’444 teaches an analogous system for electrostatically spraying particles (powder) onto a substrate [n0002], including a spray nozzle 106 (spray gun) capable of emitting a particle-laden spray flow (Fig. 4;[n0003,n0014]); a conveyed substrate (conveyor belt or conveyed article being coated) capable of being conveyed at a velocity (any conveyance will necessarily be at a velocity) [0022,0059]; and a controller capable of operating in a feedback loop such that particles of the particle-laden spray flow are capable of being controllably deposited on a surface of the conveyed substrate, since a sensor measures a distance and sends a signal to automatically start the system [n0058]. In addition, CN’444 teaches an air knife 232 providing controllable air flow in a downward direction to the particle-laden spray flow under control of the controller (since the system starts under the control of the controller) (Fig. 7; [n0020,n0024,n0053,n0058]) to help move particles to a powder suction pipe for powder recovery [n0055, n0059]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of US’222 with an air knife providing a controllable air flow in a downward direction to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of the controller, because CN’444 suggests an air knife above a conveyed substrate and directed towards a conveying device on which a substrate is conveyed in order to direct powder towards a powder recovery system.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of US’222 in view of CN’444 fails to teach that the airflow includes a component in a direction parallel to flow of the conveyed substrate. However, the airflow would have been expected to have at least some small component of a velocity vector parallel to the conveyed substrate merely because of edge effects of holes in a nozzle of the air knife as the air exits the holes, forming a cone of air. Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the angle of the air knife in order to direct the air where needed in order to guide particles towards a position of the suction pipe.
Regarding Claim 5, US’222 teaches a heated air flow [0100,0046], and a drying unit, including a combination of heaters and an air blower [0048]. US’222 fails to teach an air knife. However, an air knife would have been an obvious modification (see rejection of Claim 3 above). Additionally, because US’222 teaches heated air flow, it would have been apparent, and thus obvious, that the obvious air knife is capable of providing a heated air flow within the heated environment.
Regarding Claim 6, US’222 teaches a radiant heater providing a controllable heating energy to the nanoparticle-laden spray flow under control of the controller (Fig. 1; [0042]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi (US 2021/0291222) in view of Miao et al. (CN113828444) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Goller et al. (US 4,175,055).
Regarding Claims 8-9, US’222 teaches a vacuum having an inlet positioned below a surface of the conveyed substrate (Fig. 2; [0051]). US’222 fails to teach wherein the conveyed substrate comprises openings through which an air can flow towards the inlet of the vacuum. Goller et al. (US’055) teach an analogous apparatus for coating a substrate, including drawing a vacuum under the substrate, including a “vacuum vessel environment,” to draw powder onto the substrate (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 24-33; col. 4, lines 19-23; col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’222 with a vacuum having an inlet positioned below a surface of the conveyed substrate, wherein the conveyed substrate comprises openings through which an air flow, including particles of the nanoparticle-laden spray flow, passes in a path towards the inlet of the vacuum in accordance with a controlled suction flow provided by the vacuum under control of the controller, because US’055 suggests such a vacuum positioned below a substrate to draw coating particles onto the surface of a substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 20 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered and overcomes this rejection. The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 20 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,11,12, and 14 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Kito et al. (WO’695) and the rejections of Claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Nishi (US’222) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant incorporated the language of previous Claim 3, previously rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious, into Claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that US’222 does not describe Applicant’s claimed spray nozzle feature (Remarks, p. 7), Applicant’s argument discusses ultrasonic oscillator 14B and mist generating section 14 and does not address the spray nozzle plainly taught in the rejection’s citations. For example, Examiner cited paragraph [0045]; paragraph [0045] reads, “The carrier gas CGS containing the modified mist that has passed through the flow path section 20A of the mist modifying section 20 is supplied through the top portion of the mist spouting section 30 via the pipe 24, and is sprayed onto the substrate P at a prescribed flow rate (wind speed) from a slit-shaped nozzle formed in the bottom portion of the mist spouting section 30 facing the substrate P.” Yet, Applicant’s argument does not address this paragraph which expressly teaches “a slit-shaped nozzle” in 30, but rather discusses features 14 and 14B in a separate mist generating section 14.
In response to Applicant’s argument none of Kito, Nishi, or Miao would have suggested the airknife, because they do not recognize a particular problem that would have motivated the modification (Remarks, p. 8), US’222 teaches an air blower [0048] for heating a substrate [0048] but does not teach an air knife. Miao (CN’444) is analogous art for coating a substrate with fine particles (powder) and teaches an air knife for blowing particulate coating material for recycling. Thus, it would have been obvious to include an air knife. A specific intended use is not given significant patentable weight, and the question is whether a suggested air knife would be capable of performing a recited intended use. Applicant argues that Applicant’s air knife is used for an intended use of controlling deposition of particles rather than removal of material (Remarks, p. 8, last paragraph; p. 10). However, the claims do not require the intended use of an air knife capable of propelling nanoparticles toward a surface, and the air knife of CN’444 is capable of the intended use.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Ultra Sound mist generator of Nishi (US’222) is not a spray nozzle (Remarks, p. 9), Examiner agrees. The slit-shaped nozzle capable of spraying modified mist is a spray nozzle. See [0045].
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712