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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 17 and 18 in the reply filed on 04/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “claims 6 and 15 are so intertwined with the claims of Group I that they represent a single general inventive concept”, and “there is not substantial search or examination burden for the Patent Office to examine claims 6 and 15 in addition to claim 1”.
This is not found persuasive because the groups of claims recite different inventions. The groups of inventions I-V do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 1 3.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as discussed in paragraphs 2-3 of the previous Office action. Moreover, applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements.
Claims 6-16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure does not recite that the application claims the benefits of an international application, PCT/EP2021/055010 filed on 03/01/2021. The applicant is reminded to update the continuity data of their invention. 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “rotatable deflecting element” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, claim limitation “air flow regulator” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 5 and 18, have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, “rotatable deflecting element” has been defined as a rotatable bell cup (page 5, lines 15-16), reference #44 of figure 2, and equivalents thereof.
In the specification, “air flow regulator” has been defined as a regulator valve (page 14, line 18-19), reference #54 of figure 2, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1326631 to Makoto et al. (hereinafter “Makoto”, see attached English translation) in view of US 2016/0030962 to Sinnott et al. (hereinafter “Sinnott”).
Rgearding claim 1, Makoto teaches a method for cleaning an apparatus for applying a coating medium (English translation [0050, and 0071-0072]), wherein the apparatus comprises a rotatable deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6) for atomizing the coating medium (English translation [0043-0044 and 0047]), and a cleaning medium line (supply channel, figures 1 and 4, #50) for conducting a cleaning medium (solvent) to the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6) (English translation [0071-0072] and figure 4). In addition, Makoto teaches that the cleaning operation comprises the step of delivering the cleaning medium (solvent) through the cleaning medium line (supply channel, figures 1 and 4, #50) towards the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6) while rotating the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6) (English translation [0071-0072], and figure 4).
Makoto does not teach the steps of collecting operational values of at least one operational parameter of the apparatus for the cleaning operation, comparing the operational values with reference values of the at least one operational parameter for the cleaning operation, and determining whether the cleaning operation was successful or unsuccessful based on the comparison.
Sinnott teaches a method for monitoring a rotary paint atomizer [0041] comprising the steps of collecting operational values of at least one operational parameter of the apparatus (e.g., rotational speed of the bell cup, and air flow rate) for a coating application [0012, 0016, 0021, and 0050], comparing the operational values with reference values (target rotational speed of the bell cup, and target air flow rate) of the at least one operational parameter (e.g., rotational speed of the bell cup, and air flow rate) [0041, 0050, and 0060], detecting if at least one of the operational parameters differs from the target operational parameters [0060], and producing an indicator signal, alerting the user so that the user can visually or otherwise verify suitable operation of the rotary paint atomizer and/or effective operation of the application process [0061].
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 method disclosed by Makoto with the steps of collecting operational values of at least one operational parameter of the apparatus for the cleaning operation, comparing the operational values with reference values of the at least one operational parameter for the cleaning operation, and determining whether the cleaning operation was successful or unsuccessful based on the comparison, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure efficient cleaning of the atomizer, and since Sinnott teaches that it was known in the art to monitor a rotary paint atomizer during a coating application in general ([0012, 0041, and 0043] of Sinnott) by collecting operational values of at least one operational parameter of the apparatus (e.g., rotational speed of the bell cup, and air flow rate) ([0012, 0016, 0021, and 0050] of Sinnott), comparing the operational values with reference values (target rotational speed of the bell cup, and target air flow rate) of the at least one operational parameter (e.g., rotational speed of the bell cup, and air flow rate) ([0041, 0050, and 0060] of Sinnott), detecting if at least one of the operational parameters differs from the target operational parameters ([0060] of Sinnott), and producing an indicator signal, alerting the user so that the user can visually or otherwise verify suitable operation of the rotary paint atomizer and/or effective operation of the application process ([0061] of Sinnott).
Regarding claim 2, Makoto/Sinnott further teaches that the at least one operational parameter comprises a parameter indicative of a rotational speed of the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6 of Makoto) ([0012, 0016, 0021, and 0050] of Sinnott).
Regarding claim 3, Makoto/Sinnott further teaches that the apparatus comprises a turbine (figure 1, #40 of Makoto) arranged to drive rotation of the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6 of Makoto) and arranged to be driven by pressurized air (English translation [0048 and 0058] of Makoto).
Rgearding claim 4, Makoto/Sinnott further teaches that the at least one operational parameter is a parameter indicative of the pressurized air ([0016, and 0050] of Sinnott).
Rgearding claim 17, Makoto/Sinnott further teaches that the apparatus comprises a turbine (figure 1, #40 of Makoto) arranged to drive rotation of the deflecting element (rotating atomizing head, figure 1, #6 of Makoto) and arranged to be driven by pressurized air (English translation [0048 and 0058] of Makoto).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1326631 to Makoto et al. (hereinafter “Makoto”, see attached English translation) in view of US 2016/0030962 to Sinnott et al. (hereinafter “Sinnott”), and in further view of JP2010137166 to Kurata et al. (hereinafter “Kurata”, presented in the IDS filed on 11/04/2024, see attached English translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Makoto/Sinnott does not teach that the apparatus comprises an air flow regulator arranged to regulate the flow of the pressurized air, and wherein the at least one operational parameter is a parameter indicative of a state of the air flow regulator.
Kurata teaches a rotary atomizing paint machine and a method for supplying air to the rotary atomizing paint machine (English translation [0002]), wherein the rotary atomizing paint machine comprises an air flow regulator (pressure regulating valve, figure 1, #16 or 21) arranged to regulate a flow of the pressurized air (English translation [0014-0016]).
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 method disclosed by Makoto/Sinnott wherein the apparatus further comprises an air flow regulator arranged to regulate a flow of the pressurized air, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kurata teaches that it was known in the art that a rotary atomizing paint machine can comprise an air flow regulator (pressure regulating valve, figure 1, #16 or 21 of Kurata) arranged to regulate/adjust a flow of the pressurized air (English translation [0014-0016] of Kurata).
Makoto/Sinnott/Kurata does not teach that the at least one operational parameter is a parameter indicative of a state of the air flow regulator.
However, 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 method disclosed by Makoto/Sinnott/Kurata wherein the at least one operational parameter is a parameter indicative of a state of the air flow regulator, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sinnott teaches that it was known in the art to monitor operating parameters or variables of a rotary paint atomizer system to detect a missing or obstructed bell cup, and/or air feed line ([0077] of Sinnott).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
