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 .
Elections/Restrictions
2. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 02/06/2026 with traverse of species I-1, sub-species I-1A, I-2B & I-3A claims 17-29, 31 & 33-36 for further examination. Claims 30, 32, 37-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the grounds that While Applicant agrees that Groups I-III are independent and distinct, Applicant respectfully asserts that Groups I-III should be examined at the same time. Applicant asserts that a thorough search for one of the Groups would encompass a search for the other Group. This is not found persuasive because even though a few U.S. Patents disclosing a coating device may have some of the common features of all species, it is recognized that each coating device has features that are characterized as separate and distinct subject for inventive efforts. Thus, regardless of the search method, inventions with different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionality as well and it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention. The findings of separate and distinct structural limitations and configurations would justify a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP 808.02.
Thus far, applicant has not proved or provided convincing argument that there is no material difference between the species/sub-species currently on the record. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2023, 12/01/2025 & 03/13/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
References lined-through were not considered as an English abstract or translation has not been provided.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4 & 5 end with a period, line 4 should end with a comma.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 20-21, 26-29, 31 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 20, line 2 recites the limitation “the purpose”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the purpose” as “a purpose”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “a purpose”.
As regards to claim 21, line 4 recites the limitation “the rotating first sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the rotating first sensor” as “the first sensor”. To correct this problem, amend line 4 to recite “the first sensor”.
As regards to claim 36, line 2 recites the limitation “the operating time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the operating time” as “operating time”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “operating time”.
Claims 26-29 & 31 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection I, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
9. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As regards to claim 27, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the sleeve is a metal sleeve,” however claim 26 (from which claim 27 depends), lines 1-6 recite “wherein at least one of the rotating first magnetic element and the rotating second magnetic element comprises a design selected from a group consisting of: a) a ring magnet, b) a bar magnet, and c) a magnetic mass in a sleeve”, thus only requiring one of a) a ring magnet, b) a bar magnet, and c) a magnetic mass in a sleeve. Therefore if a ring magnet is relied upon to satisfy claim 26 (as is the case below), there is no c) a magnetic mass in a sleeve as recited in claim 27. Therefore claim 27 is not further limiting since it requires structure which is not required in claim 26 from which it depends. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim Rejections
10. 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 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.
11. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 17-26, 28-29, 31 & 34-36 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansinger et al. (US 6,056,215 A) hereinafter Hansinger (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Hansinger are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 17, Hansinger discloses a coating device for coating components (abs; fig 1-23), comprising:
a) an electrostatic coating agent charging system, so that the coating device has a high-voltage area and an electrically grounded area (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 43-52; col 10, ln 31-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21),
b) a first sensor (96) in the high-voltage area (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-21), and
c) an optical waveguide (104+112) for transmitting a measurement signal of the first sensor (96) from the high-voltage area to the electrically grounded area, the optical waveguide (104+112) providing potential isolation between the high-voltage area and the electrically grounded area (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 43-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21),
d) wherein the first sensor (96) is a first magnetic sensor (96) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 18, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), further comprising a first electro-optical transducer (66) which converts an electrical signal of the first sensor (96) into a first optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide (104+112) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-2; clm 25).
As regards to claim 19, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein a) the coating device comprises a rotary atomizer with a bell cup shaft (34) which can be rotated about a rotation axis and is used to hold a bell cup (47), b) the rotary atomizer is arranged in the high-voltage area, c) the rotary atomizer comprises a rotating first magnetic element (94) which, in operation, rotates with the bell cup shaft (34) of the rotary atomizer and generates an alternating magnetic field during rotation, and d) the first magnetic sensor (96) is arranged in a fixed position in the rotary atomizer and detects the alternating magnetic field generated by the rotating first magnetic element (94) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 20, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein a) for a purpose of detecting the direction of rotation, the rotary atomizer comprises a rotating second magnetic element (94) which, during operation, rotates with the bell cup shaft (34) of the rotary atomizer and generates an alternating magnetic field during rotation, b) the rotating second magnetic element (94) is arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, offset from the rotating first magnetic element (94), in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation, c) the angular offset between the rotating first magnetic element (94) and the rotating second magnetic element (94) is not equal to 180° (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 25, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the first electro-optical transducer (66) comprises at least one light-emitting diode for generating the optical signal (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-2; clm 25).
As regards to claim 26, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the rotating first magnetic element (94) comprises a design selected from a ring magnet (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 28, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein a) the coating device comprises a rotary atomizer with a bell cup shaft (34) which can be rotated about a rotation axis and is used to hold a bell cup (47), b) the rotary atomizer is arranged in the high-voltage area, c) the ring magnet comprises a multipole magnetization with a plurality of magnetic poles distributed in the circumferential direction (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 29, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the magnetization of the ring magnet is not rotationally symmetrical with respect to the axis of rotation of the bell cup shaft (34) in order to enable detection of the direction of rotation (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 31, it is noted that claim 31 is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since Hansinger’s ring magnet is similar to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
As regards to claim 31, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the ring magnet can be injection molded (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 31-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 34, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein a) the first magnetic sensor (96) generates electrical energy (induces a voltage) during operation, b) an energy storage device (100) is provided for storing the electrical energy generated by the first magnetic sensor (96) and c) the energy storage device (100) supplies an electrical load with the electrical energy required to operate the load (voltage signal) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 43-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 35, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein a) the load (voltage signal) comprises an electronic circuit, and b) the electronic circuit is connected to the first electro-optical transducer (66) in order to transmit information to the electrically grounded area via the optical waveguide (104+112) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 43-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
As regards to claim 36, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the transmitted information is operating time (speed) of the coating device (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 7, ln 43-52; col 9, ln 11-col 12, ln 66; col 14, ln 13-65; fig 1-21).
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 of this title, 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.
15. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
16. Claims 21-24 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansinger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Roney et al. (US 2010/0116901 A1) hereinafter Roney (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Roney are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 21, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the first magnetic sensor (96) is a first magnetic sensor (96) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-21), however Hansinger does not disclose
wherein a) the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation, and b) the second sensor is arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, offset from the first sensor (96), in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation, c) the angular offset between the first sensor (96) and the second sensor is not equal to 180°.
Roney discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-5b), comprising a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation (abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein a) the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation in the device of Hansinger, because Roney teaches the use of a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation by detecting a magnetic field generated by the magnet during nozzle rotation to generate a signal indicative of the speed and direction of rotation of the nozzle abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]), wherein it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the sensors so the second sensor is arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, offset from the first sensor, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation and the angular offset between the first sensor and the second sensor is not equal to 180°, since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As regards to claim 22, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), however Hansinger does not disclose wherein the second sensor is a second magnetic sensor.
Roney discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-5b), comprising a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation, wherein the second sensor is a second magnetic sensor (abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation, wherein the second sensor is a second magnetic sensor in the device of Hansinger, because Roney teaches the use of a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, wherein the second sensor is a second magnetic sensor, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation by detecting a magnetic field generated by the magnet during nozzle rotation to generate a signal indicative of the speed and direction of rotation of the nozzle abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]).
As regards to claim 23, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23),
further comprising a first electro-optical transducer (66) which converts an electrical signal of the first sensor (96) into a first optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide (104+112) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-2; clm 25), however Hansinger does not disclose further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide.
Roney discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-5b), comprising a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation, further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide (abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide in the device of Hansinger, because Roney teaches the use of a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation by detecting a magnetic field generated by the magnet during nozzle rotation to generate a signal indicative of the speed and direction of rotation of the nozzle abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]).
As regards to claim 24, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23),
however Hansinger does not disclose further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide.
Roney discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-5b), comprising a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation, further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide, wherein the two optical signals have different wavelengths in order to be able to transmit not only rotational speed information but also rotational direction information
(abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide, wherein the two optical signals have different wavelengths in order to be able to transmit not only rotational speed information but also rotational direction information in the device of Hansinger, because Roney teaches the use of a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, further comprising a second electro-optical transducer which converts an electrical signal of the second sensor into a second optical signal and couples it into the optical waveguide, wherein the two optical signals have different wavelengths in order to be able to transmit not only rotational speed information but also rotational direction information, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation by detecting a magnetic field generated by the magnet during nozzle rotation to generate a signal indicative of the speed and direction of rotation of the nozzle abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]).
As regards to claim 33, Hansinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-23), wherein the first magnetic sensor (96) is a first magnetic sensor (96) (col 4, ln 42-col 5, ln 65; col 9, ln 11-col 11, ln 31; fig 1-21), however Hansinger does not disclose a Wiegand sensor.
Roney discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1-5b), comprising a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation and speed (abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein a) the rotary atomizer comprises a second sensor for detecting the direction of rotation and speed in the device of Hansinger, because Roney teaches the use of a sensor unit 30 including two Hall-effect sensors (not shown) enclosed within the sensor unit 30 for detecting the direction of rotation, and arranged with a certain angular offset in the direction of rotation, in order to enable the detection of the direction of rotation by detecting a magnetic field generated by the magnet during nozzle rotation to generate a signal indicative of the speed and direction of rotation of the nozzle (abs; [0008]-[0011]; [0021]-[0023]; [0026]; [0031]-[0036]). A Wiegand sensor and a Hall-effect sensor are considered functionally equivalent sensors. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a Wiegand sensor for the Hall-effect sensor disclosed by Roney since they are functionally equivalent and one of an obvious finite choices of sensors with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights