DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on February 13, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, 14 and 18 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued November 13, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 4 and 12 are withdrawn because the claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paasche on claims 1, 5-10, 13-16 and 19-20 are withdrawn because independent claims 1, 8 and 14 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paasche and Pickworth on claims 2-4, 11-12 and 17-18 are withdrawn because independent claims 1, 8 and 14 were amended.
Please consider the following.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paasche (US 2,069,844) in view of Pickworth (US 20200023401).
In regards to claim 1, Paasche teaches a machine comprising:
a supporting member (22 , tray) with a plurality of spindles which holds articles (A), where the spindle is capable of holding a dental restoration (fig. 1, 6; pg. 2- left-lines 35-50, right lines 60-75, pg. 3-left lines 1-5);
a lower sprayer (see middle/lower air brush-67 relative to horizontal) at a first angle, which applies paint to the articles, where the sprayer is capable of spraying a glaze (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10);
a upper spray (see upper most air brush-67 relative to horizontal) at a second angle, which applies paint to the articles, where the sprayer is capable of spraying a glaze (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10);
an air motor (28/30) is coupled to and rotates the supporting member at a predetermined speed (fig. 1, 5; pg. 2, left line 60- right line 5).
Paasche does not explicitly teach a plurality of sprayers positioned radially about a circumference of the tray.
However, Pickworth teaches a nozzle assembly (64) comprising an upper nozzle-68’ and a three lower nozzles (68, 68’’, 68’’’, sprayers), where the three lower nozzles are at different locations along the radius of a turntable (38) and direct the spray towards a footwear on the turntable(fig. 4, 10-12; para. 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the three lower nozzles of Pickworth onto the lower sprayer of Paasche because Pickworth teaches it will provide an effective coating without buildup (para. 37).
With regards to the recitations of dental restorations, the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
In regards to claims 2-3, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Pickworth teaches the three lower nozzles that are equally spaced from each other (fig. 4, 10-12).
In regards to claim 4, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche depicts the lower sprayer and the upper sprayer are at the first angle and the second angle (fig. 1).
Paasche and Pickworth do not explicitly teach the first angle is between 0 and -10o, and the second angle is between -30o and -40o.
Paasche depicts lower sprayer (see middle air brush-67 relative to horizontal plane) at the first angle which is capable of being in the range of 0 to -10-degrees relative to horizontal plane, and the upper spray (see upper most air brush-67 relative to horizontal plane) at the second angle which is capable of being in the range of -30 to -40-degrees relative to horizontal plane (fig. 1).
Paasche teaches the angles for the sprayers maybe adjusted to obtain the most efficient and thorough coating of the article (pg. 3, left line 65- right line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the adjustability of sprayers to obtain the claimed the first angle is between 0 and -10o relative to horizontal plane, and the second angle is between -30o and -40o relative to horizontal plane, to obtain the most efficient and thorough coating of the article, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 5, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches the plurality of spindles which holds articles (A), where the plurality of spindles are capable of holding two or more dental restorations (fig. 1, 6; pg. 2- left-lines 35-50, right lines 60-75, pg. 3-left lines 1-5).
With regards to the two or more one dental restorations, the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
In regards to claim 6, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches the respective sprays from the lower sprayer and the upper sprayer overlap to spray the article at a same time (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 65- right line 5).
In regards to claim 7, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches a dryer (145), the supporting member (22 , tray) rotates the articles through dryer, the dryer is capable of being dental porcelain furnace (fig. 1-2; pg. 5, left-line 70- right line 30).
In regards to claim 8, Paasche teaches a machine comprising:
a supporting member (22 , tray) with a plurality of spindles which holds articles (A), where the spindles is capable of provided a first dental restoration and the second restoration holder, where each spindle is capable of holding a dental restoration (fig. 1, 6; pg. 2- left-lines 35-50, right lines 60-75, pg. 3-left lines 1-5);
a plurality of sprayers (see air brushes-67, 165, 166, 167) which applies paint to the articles, where the sprayer is capable of spraying a glaze (fig. 1, 13; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10);
an air motor (28/30) is coupled to and rotates the supporting member at a predetermined speed (fig. 1, 5; pg. 2, left line 60- right line 5);
where the machine provides a first position, the first spindle/dental restoration is within the spray and a second position, the second spindle/dental restoration is within the spray (fig. 13).
Paasche does not explicitly teach a plurality of sprayers positioned radially about a circumference of the tray.
However, Pickworth teaches a nozzle assembly (64) comprising an upper nozzle-68’ and a three lower nozzles (68, 68’’, 68’’’, sprayers), where the three lower nozzles are at different locations along the radius of a turntable (38) and direct the spray towards a footwear on the turntable(fig. 4, 10-12; para. 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the three lower nozzles of Pickworth onto the lower sprayer of Paasche because Pickworth teaches it will provide an effective coating without buildup (para. 37).
With regards to the recitations of dental restorations, the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
In regards to claim 9, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches air motor provides the claimed rotation of from the second position to the first position in a same direction as from the first position to the second position (fig. 1, 13; pg. 2, lines 45-75, pg. 6 right-line 65- pg. 7 left line 10).
In regards to claim 10, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches the plurality of sprayers (see air brushes-67, 165, 166, 167) comprises a lower sprayer (see example of middle/lower air brush-67 & relative to horizontal) at a first angle and an upper spray (see example of upper most air brush-67 relative to horizontal) at a second angle, where the first angle is different than the second angle (fig. 1, 13; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10).
In regards to claim 11, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Pickworth teaches the three lower nozzles that are equally spaced from each other (fig. 4, 10-12).
In regards to claim 12, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche depicts the lower sprayer and the upper sprayer are at the first angle and the second angle (fig. 1).
Paasche and Pickworth do not explicitly teach the first angle is between 0 and -10o, and the second angle is between -30o and -40o.
Paasche depicts lower sprayer (see middle air brush-67 relative to horizontal plane) at the first angle which is capable of being in the range of 0 to -10-degrees relative to horizontal plane, and the upper spray (see upper most air brush-67 relative to horizontal plane) at the second angle which is capable of being in the range of -30 to -40-degrees relative to horizontal plane (fig. 1).
Paasche teaches the angles for the sprayers maybe adjusted to obtain the most efficient and thorough coating of the article (pg. 3, left line 65- right line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the adjustability of sprayers to obtain the claimed the first angle is between 0 and -10o relative to horizontal plane, and the second angle is between -30o and -40o relative to horizontal plane, to obtain the most efficient and thorough coating of the article, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 13, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches a dryer (145, furnace), the supporting member (22 , tray) rotates the articles through dryer, the dryer is capable of being dental porcelain furnace (fig. 1-2; pg. 5, left-line 70- right line 30).
In regards to claim 14, Paasche teaches a machine comprising:
a supporting member (22 , tray) with a plurality of spindles which holds articles (A), where the spindle is capable of holding a dental restoration (fig. 1, 6; pg. 2- left-lines 35-50, right lines 60-75, pg. 3-left lines 1-5);
a first/lower sprayer (see middle/lower air brush-67 relative to horizontal) at a first angle, which applies paint to the articles, where the sprayer is capable of spraying a glaze (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10);
a second/upper spray (see upper most air brush-67 relative to horizontal) at a second angle, which applies paint to the articles, where the sprayer is capable of spraying a glaze (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 50- right line 10);
a paint tank (140, reservoir) which stores paint, where the paint tank is capable of storing a glaze, the paint tank is fluid communication with each of the first sprayer and the second sprayer to apply the same paint (fig. 1 ; pg. 5, left lines 30-55).
Paasche does not explicitly teach a plurality of sprayers positioned radially about a circumference of the tray.
However, Pickworth teaches a nozzle assembly (64) comprising an upper nozzle-68’ and a three lower nozzles (68, 68’’, 68’’’, sprayers), where the three lower nozzles are at different locations along the radius of a turntable (38) and direct the spray towards a footwear on the turntable(fig. 4, 10-12; para. 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the three lower nozzles of Pickworth onto the lower sprayer of Paasche because Pickworth teaches it will provide an effective coating without buildup (para. 37).
With regards to the recitations of dental restorations, the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
In regards to claim 15, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches a suitable air source (not shown, air tank) is connected to the first sprayer and the second sprayer (fig. 1; pg. 5, lines 10-65).
In regards to claim 16, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches the respective sprays from the lower sprayer and the upper sprayer overlap to spray the article at a same time (fig. 1; pg. 3, left line 65- right line 5).
In regards to claims 17-18, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Pickworth teaches the three lower nozzles that are equally spaced from each other (fig. 4, 10-12).
In regards to claim 19, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches a dryer (145, kiln), the supporting member (22 , tray) rotates the articles through dryer (fig. 1-2; pg. 5, left-line 70- right line 30).
In regards to claim 20, Paasche and Pickworth as discussed, where Paasche teaches an air motor (28/30) is coupled to and rotates the supporting member at a predetermined speed (fig. 1, 5; pg. 2, left line 60- right line 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Paasche describes a paint-applying machine having air brushes 67 located along one side of the machine and therefore cannot be "positioned radially about a circumference of the tray," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Pickworth describes three lower nozzles 68, 68", 68" that are located on one side of Pickworth's turntable 38.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Paasche in view of Pickworth is discussed above to address the claimed sprayers positioned radially about a circumference of the tray.
Although the three lower nozzles (68, 68’’, 68’’’) are along one side of the coating compartment (20), Pickworth shows the three lower nozzles (68, 68’’, 68’’’) at different locations around the circumference of turntable (fig. 10-11). This arrangement addresses the claimed positioned radially about a circumference of the tray.
Conclusion
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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 Yuan can be reached at 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717