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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application. Claims 5 and 6 are newly added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 29 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansinger et al. (US 6,056,215).
Regarding claim 5, Hansinger teaches a coating machine (10) comprising a rotary atomizing head-type sprayer having a rotary atomizing head (col. 1, ln. 20-25; fig. 1) to spray paint on the tip (238) of a hollow rotary axis (202) that may be rotated by an air motor (44) in order to supply paint from a feed tube inserted into the rotary axis toward the rotary atomizing head (col. 7, ln. 53-65),
wherein the rotary atomizing head is constructed of a cup part (col. 7, ln. 62-63; fig. 6A) that is mounted at the tip end of said rotary axis (fig. 6A) and that has an extended paint surface (242) with a front surface that extends toward the front (fig. 6A), and a hub part (232) that is provided inside the cup part and that has an opposing surface that forms a uniform gap part (240, see col. 18, ln. 41-60 – each of the gaps are uniform) with said extended paint surface throughout the entire circumference (col. 18, ln. 41-43; fig. 6A);
a paint supply source (col. 8, ln. 6-8) to supply the paint for the rotary atomizing head-type sprayer, and
a paint supply channel (46) from the paint supply source to the rotary atomizing head (fig. 1),
wherein the paint supply channel is provided with a paint micronization means (col. 18, ln. 44-49 – “finely divided, individual streams”) to promote the micronization of the paint that may be sprayed from the rotary atomizing head;
and said paint micronization means is said gap part (col. 18, ln. 44-49).
Regarding claim 6, Hansinger teaches a coating machine (10) comprising a rotary atomizing head-type sprayer having a rotary atomizing head (col. 1, ln. 20-25; fig. 1) to spray paint on the tip (238) of a hollow rotary axis (202) that may be rotated by an air motor (44) in order to supply paint from a feed tube inserted into the rotary axis toward the rotary atomizing head (col. 7, ln. 53-65),
a paint supply source (col. 8, ln. 6-8) to supply the paint for the rotary atomizing head-type sprayer, and
a paint supply channel (46) from the paint supply source to the rotary atomizing head (fig. 1),
wherein the paint supply channel is provided with a paint micronization means (49) to promote the micronization of the paint that may be sprayed from the rotary atomizing head;
wherein the paint micronization means a mesh-shaped micronization member (610, see col. 8, ln. 7-8; fig. 1);
wherein the mesh-shaped micronization member is external to a housing (14) of the rotary atomizing head-type sprayer (fig. 1 – element 610 is in section 16, which is external from section 14).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansinger.
Regarding claim 3, Hansinger discloses the coating machine described regarding claim 5, and further wherein the gap dimension between said extended paint surface and said opposing surface has been set to be 0.10 in. (col. 18, ln. 58 – which is about 2.5 mm). Hansinger does not explicitly disclose that the gap dimension between said extended paint surface and said opposing surface has been set to be less than 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 0.2 mm or less for the gap dimension between said extended paint surface and said opposing surface since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, Hansinger discloses the coating machine described regarding claim 6, but not wherein the mesh-shaped micronization member has a pore size of 20 μm or less.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 20 μm or less for the pore size since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art teaches the coating machine described above, but does not disclose a paint micronization means comprising a shearing member that is a plate equipped with a plurality of micropores, in combination with the other recited elements of claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights