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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms filed on May 31, 2023, January 31, 2025 and March 13, 2026 are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS. It is noted that NPL Citation No. 5 on the IDS filed May 31, 2023 has been lined through, as a copy of this document does not appear in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, on line 3, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Further, regarding claim 23, on line 4, --rotational-- should be inserted between “supercritical” and “speed” (see lines 2-3 of claim 45, which clearly indicates a need for clear antecedent basis to “supercritical rotational speed range”).
Regarding claim 25, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 26, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “receiving chamber”.
Regarding claim 27, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “receiving chamber”.
Regarding claim 28, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 31, on line 1, “Spray-off” should be replaced with --The spray-off--.
Regarding claim 33, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 34, on line 1, “the a” should be replaced with --the--.
Regarding claim 35, on line 1, “the a” should be replaced with --the--.
Regarding claim 36, on line 1, “the a” should be replaced with --the--.
Regarding claim 37, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Further, regarding claim 37, on line 11, --or-- should be inserted at the end of the line, after “fluid, ”.
Regarding claim 38, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 39, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 41, on line 1, “Spray-off” should be replaced with --The spray-off--.
Further, regarding claim 41, on line 1, --:-- should be inserted at the end of the line, after “comprising”.
Further, regarding claim 41, on line 11, --:-- should be inserted at the end of the line, after “speed”.
Further, regarding claim 41, on line 13, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 42, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 44, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass” (first occurrence).
Further, regarding claim 44, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass” (second occurrence).
Regarding claim 45, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Further, regarding claim 45, on line 3, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Further, regarding claim 45, on line 5, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 46, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 47, on line 2, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Regarding claim 51, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
Further, regarding claim 51, on line 2, “magnet-rheological” should be replaced with --magneto-rheological--.
Further, regarding claim 51, on line 4, a period (--.--) should be inserted at the end of the line.
Regarding claim 52, on line 1, “spray- off” should be replaced with --spray-off--.
Further, regarding claim 52, on line 1, --at least one -- should be inserted before “balancing mass”.
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.
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:
“at least one balancing mass” (i.e., a mass for balancing...of the spray-off body” in (at least) claim 23.
“fixing mechanism” in (at least) claim 42.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 48, the originally-filed specification is completely devoid of any description regarding the “fixing mechanism” being “operated by compressed air”, in a manner whereby any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention recited in claim 48. In fact, the term “compressed air” does not even appear in the specification.
Regarding claim 50, the originally-filed specification is completely devoid of any description regarding the “fixing mechanism” being “operated hydraulically”, in a manner whereby any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention recited in claim 50. In fact, no form of the word “hydraulic” even appears in the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-41, 44-46, 51 and 52 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.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is drafted in a manner which appears to be intended for being a dependent claim, yet the claim does not indicate from which claim it depends. Since claim 23 appears to be the only pending independent claim, and claim 24 is numerically listed immediately after claim 23, claim 24 will be examined on the merits with the assumption that the claim depends from claim 23.
Regarding claim 41, on line 5, the recitation, “the bearing system” lacks antecedent basis.
Further, regarding claim 41, on line 9, the recitation, “the design-related supercritical speed range” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 44, on line 2, the recitation, “the critical number of rotation” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 45, on line 2, the recitation, “the critical rotational speed” lacks antecedent basis.
Further, regarding claim 45, on line 3, the recitation, “the noncritical rotational speed range” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 46, on line 2, the recitation, “the centrifugal force” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 51, the end of the claim appears to be incomplete, whereby the full metes and bounds of the claim cannot clearly be understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zwayyed, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0038141.
As to claim 23, Zwayyed shows embodiments of a spray-off body (see Figs. 3-8) for a rotary atomizer (34; see paragraph [0031]) for applying a coating agent to a component (the spray-off body of Zwayyed clearly for the purpose of atomizing/spraying a liquid, and thus Zwayyed is clearly capable of meeting this functionally-recited, preamble recitation), comprising at least one balancing mass (“substances and/or mechanical members”; see, at least: paragraphs [0018], [0037], [0040], [0041] and [0043]-[0045]) for an automatic passive balancing of the spray-off body (as clearly discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, and throughout the entire Zwayyed disclosure), the at least one balancing mass being movably arranged in the spray-off body in order to enable the automatic passive balancing of the spray-off body in a supercritical rotational speed range (see paragraphs [0013]-[0019], [0037], [0040], [0041] and [0043]-[0045], and in particular, in the context of the discussion in paragraph [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayyed, in view of Walter Giersiepen GmbH & Co., DE-3508970-C1 (Foreign Patent Document Citation No. 2 on the IDS filed May 31, 2023), hereinafter “Giersiepen”.
As to claim 24, Zwayyed shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 23. However, the spray-off body shown by Zwayyed does not appear to be what can reasonably be called a “bell cup”.
Giersiepen shows a spray-off body assembly (15, 20, 26) of a rotary atomizer device (see Fig. 1) which is used for the purpose of applying a coating agent to a component, wherein the spray-off body assembly includes a provision for inclusion of at least one balancing mass (30) for an automatic passive balancing of the spray-off body assembly, wherein the at least one balancing mass is movably arranged in the spray-off body in order to enable the automatic passive balancing of the spray-off body in a supercritical rotational speed range. Thus, Giersiepen teaches that automatic passive balancing of a spray-off body of a rotary atomizer can be incorporated into other types of rotary atomizer spray-off bodies, such coating agent-atomizing bell cups. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotary atomizer spray-off body of Zwayyed, so as to be at least one other type of known rotary atomizer spray-off body, such as a coating agent rotary atomizer bell cup, as conceptually taught by Giersiepen, thus expanding the teachings of Zwayyed into other known types of rotary atomizer spray-off bodies.
As to claim 25, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 24, and further, Zwayyed shows the device further comprising at least one annularly circumferential receiving chamber (249 or 338) in the spray-off body for receiving the at least one balancing mass (see again, Figs. 3-8 of Zwayyed; and see paragraphs [0037], [0040], [0041], [0044] and [0045] of Zwayyed).
As to claim 26, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 25, and wherein the at least one receiving chamber is an annular groove (see again, Figs. 3-8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 27, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 25, and wherein the at least one receiving chamber is an annularly circumferential cavity (see again, Figs. 3-8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 28, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 25, and wherein the spray-off body has a plurality of receiving chambers (for example, 249 and 253 of the embodiment shown in Figs. 3-5 of Zwayyed; or, for example, 338 and 356 of the embodiment shown in Figs. 6-8 of Zwayyed) for the at least one balancing mass.
As to claim 29, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 28, and wherein the receiving chambers are separated from one another (in each of the examples discussed above with respect to claim 28, the receiving chambers are reasonably separated from one another, such as in a radial direction; and/or, each chamber “253” is clearly separate from each other chamber “253”, and each chamber “356” is clearly separate from each other chamber “356”).
As to claim 30, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 28, and wherein the receiving chambers are connected to each other (see Figs. 3 and 6 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 31, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 28, and wherein the receiving chambers are axially offset from one another (in each of the examples discussed above with respect to claim 28, the receiving chambers are reasonably axially offset from one another, such as in a comparison between the axial position of at least a portion of chamber “249”, as compared to the axial position of each chamber “253”; and/or, such as in a comparison between the axial position of at least a portion of chamber “338”, as compared to the axial position of each chamber “356”).
As to claim 32, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 28, and wherein the receiving chambers are radially offset from one another (see Figs. 3, 5, 6 and 8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 33, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 24, and wherein the at least one balancing mass can move in the spray-off body along a predetermined path (such is clearly the case; see also, paragraph [0044] of Zwayyed).
As to claim 34, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 33, and wherein the predetermined path runs in circumferential direction (such is clearly the case, based on the construction of the “channel” elements; see again, Figs. 3, 5, 6 and 8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 35, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 33, and wherein the predetermined path runs radially (based on the construction of the “channel” elements of Zwayyed, at least partial radial movement of the at least one balancing mass would occur; see again, Figs. 3, 5, 6 and 8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 36, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 33, and wherein the predetermined path runs axially (based on the construction of the “channel” elements of Zwayyed, at least partial axial movement of the at least one balancing mass would occur; see again, Figs. 3, 5, 6 and 8 of Zwayyed).
As to claim 37, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 24, and wherein the at least one balancing mass is selected from a group consisting of one or more of the listed options (see paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0019], [0037], [0040], [0041], [0043] and [0044] of Zwayyed).
As to claim 38, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 37, and wherein the fluid of the balancing mass has a viscosity which is dependent on at least one of the listed influencing variables (see paragraphs [0018], [0019] and [0044] of Zwayyed).
As to claim 39, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 37, and wherein the fluid of the balancing mass is a non-Newtonian fluid (see paragraphs [0016]-[0019], [0037] and [0040-[0045] of Zwayyed).
As to claim 40, modified Zwayyed shows the spray-off body according to claim 39, and wherein the non-Newtonian fluid is selected from a group consisting of one or more of the listed options (the non-Newtonian fluid options expressly discussed by Zwayyed would implicitly exhibit properties of one or more of the listed options).
As to claim 41, not unlike Applicant’s device, the claim recitations merely represent predictable results which would occur when operating the device of Zwayyed, as modified above to meet claim 24.
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayyed, as modified by Giersiepen and applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Brose Fahrzeugteile, DE-102013013650-A1 (Foreign Patent Document Citation No. 8 on the IDS filed May 31, 2023), hereinafter “Brose”.
As to claim 51, modified Zwayyed shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 37. However, Zwayyed does not expressly disclose the fluid of at least one balancing mass being magneto-rheological, wherein an electromagnet generates a magnetic field which acts on the fluid and influences the viscosity of the fluid to more or less fix or release the fluid or particles contained therein.
Brose shows a rotary body (see Figs. 1-10) which includes a provision for automatic passive balancing of the rotary body, wherein the balancing is facilitated by at least one balancing mass being movably arranged in the rotary body, and wherein the at least one balancing mass comprises a non-Newtonian fluid which is either magneto-rheological or electro-rheological (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]), in order to permit the use of an electromagnet or an electric field generator, respectively, to influence the viscosity of the fluid so as to “achieve optimized compensation” during balancing of the body (see paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a magneto-rheological fluid, as taught by Brose, with the at least one balancing mass of (modified) Zwayyed, thereby allowing for the use of an electromagnet to influence the viscosity of the fluid, so as to achieve optimized compensation during balancing of the spray-off body.
As to claim 52, modified Zwayyed shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 37. However, Zwayyed does not expressly disclose the fluid of at least one balancing mass being electro-rheological, wherein a field generator generates an electric field which acts on the fluid and influences the viscosity of the fluid to fix or release the fluid or particles contained therein to a greater or lesser extent.
Again, Brose shows a rotary body (see Figs. 1-10) which includes a provision for automatic passive balancing of the rotary body, wherein the balancing is facilitated by at least one balancing mass being movably arranged in the rotary body, and wherein the at least one balancing mass comprises a non-Newtonian fluid which is either magneto-rheological or electro-rheological (see paragraphs [0017]-[0019]), in order to permit the use of an electromagnet or an electric field generator, respectively, to influence the viscosity of the fluid so as to “achieve optimized compensation” during balancing of the body (see paragraph [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electro-rheological fluid, as taught by Brose, with the at least one balancing mass of (modified) Zwayyed, thereby allowing for the use of a field generator to influence the viscosity of the fluid, so as to achieve optimized compensation during balancing of the spray-off body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42, 43, 47 and 49 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 44-46 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements, as set forth above in paragraph 3 of the instant Office action, or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to van der Steur et al., Ballu et al. and Mitsui et al., and US Patent Application Publications to Nolte et al., Yamada, Hoffmann et al. and Haussermann et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights