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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-9 and 11-12 in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The brackets around the claim numbering should be removed. The claim number should read “Claim 1. (Original)” instead of “[Claim 1] Original”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (US 2007/0108316).
As to claim 1, Chung discloses a nozzle (see Fig. 3) comprising a tubular portion in which space is formed (see Fig. 3); a top portion that is continuous with the tubular portion and is provided to protrude in a liquid discharge direction, and has a space that is bilaterally symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal cross section passing through a distal end center of the top portion; and a turbulent flow forming member inserted in the tubular portion with a turbulent flow forming space left at least inside the top portion, a slit that is elongated with a constant width is formed in the top portion, the slit passing through the distal end center and having a center line that is a line appearing on a surface of the longitudinal cross section, and a main channel to which liquid is supplied and a plurality of branched channels branching from the main channel are formed inside the turbulent flow forming member, the main channel is open at a center on an inlet side of the liquid, and the plurality of branch channels are open toward the turbulent flow forming space at symmetrical positions with respect to the center line of the slit (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the exit line adapter (5 of Fig. 3) is symmetric in the central line of the slit (52 of Fig. 3) about the orthogonal line and the holes are in the central line of the slit (see Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosh (GB479677).
As to claim 1, Bosh discloses a nozzle used for spraying paint or other fluids in a flat jet (see page 1, lines 10-16) comprising a tubular portion in which a space is formed; a top portion that is continuous with the tubular portion and provided to protrude in a liquid discharge direction, and a space that is bilaterally symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal cross section passing through a distal end center of the top portion; and a turbulent flow forming member that is inserted into the tubular portion with a turbulent flow forming space left at least inside the top portion; wherein a slit that is elongated with a constant width is formed in the top portion, the slit passing through the distal end center and having a center line that is a line appearing on a surface of the longitudinal cross section; and a main channel to which a liquid supplied and a plurality of channel branches branching from the main channel and formed inside the turbulent forming member, the main channel is open at a center on an inlet side of the liquid, and the plurality of branch channels are open toward the turbulent flow forming space at symmetrical positions with respect to the center line of the slit (see annotated Figs.1 and 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, the top portion which includes 4 of Fig. 1, has a truncated pyramid shape.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (GB479677) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikeuchi et al. (US 5046668).
The teachings of Bosh as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Bosh fails to teach the top portion has hemispherical shape or the radius dimensions of the hemispherical shape as required by claims 3 and 6.
Bosh does state the nozzle has an interchangeable front plate (see page 1, lines 15-16).
Ikeuchi et al. discloses a spray nozzle where the nozzle tip has a hemispherical end face with a slit discharge opening formed across the end face (see 38, 42 of Fig. 1) that provides uniform and wide spray pattern (see col. 3, lines 21-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Bosh to include the nozzle of Ikeuchi et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to spray nozzles where and Ikeuchi et al. teaches an improved fluid distribution with the use of a hemispherical nozzle tip.
As to the radius of the nozzle tip, the size which includes the radius of the end is a result effective variable as it affects pressure drop and spray pattern. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed radius range through routine experimentation to optimize the spray pattern and uniform nature of the spray, especially absent any evidence of criticality in using the claimed radius.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (GB479677) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Slavas et al. (US 5553783).
The teachings of Bosh as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Bosh fails to teach the top portion has a conical shape or truncated cone shape as required by claim 4.
Bosh does state the nozzle has an interchangeable front plate (see page 1, lines 15-16).
Slavas et al. discloses a flat fan spray nozzle having a conical or spherically shaped nozzle tip (see Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 10-12).
It would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nozzle of Bosh to include the conically shaped nozzle tip. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to nozzles having a flat fan shape spray where Slavas et al. teaches conical shaped ends as alternatives to spherical ends and Bosh further teaches the nozzle ends are interchangeable. It has been established the mere substitution of one known element for an alternative has predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (GB479677) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Rozenberg et al. (US 2009/0234325)
The teachings of Bosh as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Bosh fails to disclose the dimensions of the slit as required by claims 7-9.
It is known in the art that the dimensions of the slit of a spray nozzle dictates the character of the spray (see 0164 of Rozenberg) . The width and length of the slit are therefore result effective variables. 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 nozzle of Bosh to include using the claimed slit ratios and dimensions through routine experimentation to optimize the character (size, symmetry, pattern) of the spray as taught by Rozenberg especially since there is no evidence in criticality in using the claimed dimensions.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (GB479677) in view of Tomita et al. (US 20130119165).
As to claim 11, Bosh discloses a nozzle used for spraying paint or other fluids in a flat jet (see page 1, lines 10-16) comprising a tubular portion in which a space is formed; a top portion that is continuous with the tubular portion and provided to protrude in a liquid discharge direction, and a space that is bilaterally symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal cross section passing through a distal end center of the top portion; and a turbulent flow forming member that is inserted into the tubular portion with a turbulent flow forming space left at least inside the top portion; wherein a slit that is elongated with a constant width is formed in the top portion, the slit passing through the distal end center and having a center line that is a line appearing on a surface of the longitudinal cross section; and a main channel to which a liquid supplied and a plurality of channel branches branching from the main channel and formed inside the turbulent forming member, the main channel is open at a center on an inlet side of the liquid, and the plurality of branch channels are open toward the turbulent flow forming space at symmetrical positions with respect to the center line of the slit (see annotated Figs.1 and 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bosh fail to teach the coating device comprises a gun for coating that has a distal end portion having the nozzle and a robot device that supports the gun and moves the gun at a constant speed in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the slit at a height position where the liquid film discharged from the slit reaches the surface of a coating object as required by claim 11.
Tomita et al. discloses a coating system including a spray gun having a nozzle mounted at a distal end (see 10 of Fig. 1 and 2), and a robot arm (57 of Fig. 2- 0026) that supports and moves the spray gun relative to a workpiece (see Fig. 2) to apply paint (see 0026). The robot moves the spray gun along a predetermined path at a controlled speed and at a defined distance from the workpiece (see 0028. Fig. 2). The nozzle is moved in a thickness direction which is orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the slit at a distance where film is discharged from the slit to the surface (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 nozzle of Bosch to be mounted on and moved by the robot arm of Tomita et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to coating devices employing slit nozzles that provide a flat, fan-shaped spray for applying a paint, and Tomita et al. further teaches that the use of a robot arm enables controlled coating of a target surface.
Tomita discloses a coating nozzle that receives paint from a supply and discharges the paint toward a workpiece while being mounted on a robot arm thereby acting as a spray gun.
With respect to the limitation of moving the gun at a constant speed, Tomita teaches that the coating nozzle is moved “slowly and linearly” while forming a coating film of a constant thickness. This implies movement at a controlled, substantially constant speed, as maintaining a constant coating thickness requires consistent depositing of the coating material. It would have been obvious to move the nozzle of Bosh modified by Tomita at a constant speed to achieve the desired uniform coating thickness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosh (GB479677) in view of Tomita et al. (US 20130119165) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Miki (KR 20120040655).
The teachings of Bosh and Tomita et al. as applied to claim 11 are as stated above
Bosh and Tomita et al. fail to teach the gun includes a valve device that turns on and off supply of the liquid to the nozzle as required by claim 12.
Miki et al. discloses a spay gun for spraying paint onto a substrate having a switch valve (40 of Figs.) The switch valve is used to turn the supply of paint on and off to the nozzle to preventing paint from building up on the nozzle after stropping the system.
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 device of Bosh modified by Tomita et al. to include the switch valve of Miki. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to nozzles for applying paint where Miki et al. teaches the inclusion of a switch valve prevents post-discharge dripping of the liquid and reduces clocking of the nozzle thereby improving coating quality and reliability of the nozzle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights