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 of the spray apparatus of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 1/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “314” (See Fig. 3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2 Line 3, “in the operation” should be revised to “in operation” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 3 Lines 4-5, “when a safety device” should be revised to “when the safety device” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 5 Lines 2-4, “wherein at least one of: the electrode is formed as a rod-shaped electrode, which is arranged in the nozzle channel, or” should be revised to “wherein: the electrode is formed as a rod-shaped electrode, which is arranged in the nozzle channel, and/or” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 9 Line 16, “or that the contact body” should be revised to “or the contact body” to ensure proper grammar.
Appropriate 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “safety device” in Claim 3, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing 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 limitations:
The “safety device” in Claim 3 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 6 of the Specification which states, “The spray apparatus 101 comprises a safety device 110, by which the operating voltage is reduced to a safety voltage of at most 120 V direct current when a safety device 110 detects a current flow of greater than 10 microamps. According to embodiment variants, a safety voltage of 0 V can also be provided and a current flow of greater than 4 microamps can also already be provided as a limiting value for a reduction of the operating voltage to the safety voltage.”. No specific structure is disclosed for the safety device. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “safety device” as best understood.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means of the guide plate” in Claim 9, which recites sufficient structure of a guide plate.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The examiner notes that the term “feed device” in Claim 1 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). While the term “feed device” uses the generic placeholder “device”, the term “feed device” is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to correspond to structure of a feed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein an operating voltage of approximately 7 kV to 8 kV is applied at the electrode in the operation of the spray apparatus” and the term “approximately” is a relative term. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear if “approximately 7 kV to 8 kV” means 6.9 kV to 8.1 kV, 6.5 kV to 8.5 kV, or some other range of voltages. For the purpose of examination, Claim 2 Line 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein an operating voltage of 7 kV to 8 kV is applied at the electrode in operation of the spray apparatus”.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the claim limitation “safety device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The “safety device” in Claim 3 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 6 of the Specification which states, “The spray apparatus 101 comprises a safety device 110, by which the operating voltage is reduced to a safety voltage of at most 120 V direct current when a safety device 110 detects a current flow of greater than 10 microamps. According to embodiment variants, a safety voltage of 0 V can also be provided and a current flow of greater than 4 microamps can also already be provided as a limiting value for a reduction of the operating voltage to the safety voltage.”. No specific structure is disclosed for the safety device. It is not clear if the “safety device” corresponds to structure of a controller or something else.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purpose of examination, the “safety device” in Claim 3 will be interpreted as corresponding to structure of a controller, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 4 is indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “wherein in undisturbed spraying operation, an operating current of approximately 2 microamps flows” and the term “approximately” is a relative term. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not clear if “approximately 2 microamps” means 1.9 mA to 2.1 mA, 1.5 mA to 2.5 mA, or some other range of currents. For the purpose of examination, Claim 4 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein in undisturbed spraying operation, an operating current of 2 microamps flows”.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2013/0092765 A1 to Kelly (“Kelly”).
As to Claim 1, Kelly discloses a spray apparatus (See #100 in Fig. 1) for spraying a cosmetic liquid by way of electrostatic forces (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing electrostatically dispensing fluid, which can be various liquids per Paragraph 0043 including fragrances, pharmaceuticals, and coatings. The apparatus #100 is capable of spraying a cosmetic liquid electrostatically), comprising:
a fluid supply (See #302 in Fig. 3),
at least one feed device (#314),
at least one nozzle (See #708 in Figs. 7A-7B),
wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a nozzle body (#720, which is a surrounding tube of the nozzle), a connection flange (See CF in Annotated Fig. 7A, which is a lower surface of the nozzle within #720), a nozzle channel (#730), a spray opening (See multiple spray openings #740), and an electrode (#718, #702, #704, and #734. See Paragraph 0093),
wherein the fluid supply is connected to the at least one feed device (See Fig. 3 and Paragraphs 0042-0043),
wherein the least one feed device is connected to the at least one nozzle (See Fig. 3 and Paragraphs 0042-0043),
wherein the electrode is arranged in the nozzle channel (See Figs. 7A-7B) such that the electrode has a distance to the spray opening measured along a longitudinal axis of the nozzle channel of at most 2.1 mm and at least 0.0 mm (See Paragraph 0059 disclosing that distances from a tip of the electrode to the spray opening can be up to four times a radius of the spray opening. Paragraph 0065 discloses spray openings with a diameter of 30 microns to 500 microns. Therefore, a distance to the spray opening from the electrode can be from .06 mm to 1.0 mm).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein at least one of:
the electrode is formed as a rod-shaped electrode, which is arranged in the nozzle channel, or
the electrode is formed as a tubular electrode, which is arranged in the nozzle channel, wherein the tubular electrode comprises a lateral surface, and presses against an inner lateral surface of the nozzle channel (See Fig. 7A. The electrode has rods #718 within #730).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein an end of the electrode opposite to the spray opening is formed planar (See #702 in Fig. 7A).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein the cosmetic liquid is a liquid and electrically insulating cosmetic sunscreen product (See Paragraph 0043 disclosing various liquids including fragrances, pharmaceuticals, and coatings that are non-conductive. The cosmetic liquid is not positively recited as part of the claimed spray apparatus, thus since the apparatus #100 is capable of spraying an electrically insulating cosmetic sunscreen product electrostatically, the claim limitation is met).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein the distance to the spray opening is at least 0.1 mm (See Paragraph 0059 disclosing that distances from a tip of the electrode to the spray opening can be up to four times a radius of the spray opening. Paragraph 0065 discloses spray openings with a diameter of 30 microns to 500 microns. Therefore, a distance to the spray opening from the electrode can be up to 1.0 mm, which is above 0.1 mm).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 16 above, Kelly further discloses wherein the distance to the spray opening is at least 0.7 mm (See Paragraph 0059 disclosing that distances from a tip of the electrode to the spray opening can be up to four times a radius of the spray opening. Paragraph 0065 discloses spray openings with a diameter of 30 microns to 500 microns. Therefore, a distance to the spray opening from the electrode can be up to 1.0 mm, which is above 0.7 mm).
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 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly.
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly does not specifically disclose wherein an operating voltage of approximately 7 kV to 8 kV is applied at the electrode in the operation of the spray apparatus (See Paragraph 0033 disclosing an operating voltage of .5 kV to 15 kV, which contains the claimed range, but an operating voltage of 7 kV to 8 kV is not specifically disclosed).
However, 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 operating voltage to 7 kV to 8 kV as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (See Page 6 of Applicant’s Specification which states “An operating voltage of approximately 7.5 kV is applied at the electrode 102 in the operation of the spray apparatus 101. In embodiment variants, operation using up to 10 kV and at least approximately 7 kV is provided”. The claimed range of voltages being critical is not disclosed.) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 4, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly does not specifically disclose wherein in undisturbed spraying operation, an operating current of approximately 2 microamps flows (See Paragraph 0033 disclosing a current of 1 microamp to 10 microamps which contains the claimed current, but am operating current of 2 microamps is not specifically disclosed).
However, 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 operating current to 2 microamps as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (See Page 5 of Applicant’s Specification which states “According to embodiment variants, a safety voltage of 0 V can also be provided and a current flow of greater than 4 microamps can also already be provided as a limiting value for a reduction of the operating voltage to the safety voltage. In the spray apparatus 101, an operating current of approximately 2 microamps flows in undisturbed spraying operation.”. The claimed current being critical is not disclosed.) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly does not specifically disclose wherein the spray apparatus operates using a power of at least 14 milliwatts and at most 100 milliwatts (See Paragraph 0033 disclosing a current of 1 microamp to 100 microamps and a voltage of 500 V to 15 kV, which correspond to power ranges of .5 milliwatts to 150 milliwatts that contain the claimed range of powers, however a power of 14 milliwatts to 100 milliwatts is not specifically disclosed).
However, 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 operating power to 14 milliwatts to 100 milliwatts as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (See Page 8 of Applicant’s Specification which states “The spray apparatus 201 is operated using a power of at least 14 milliwatts and at most 100 milliwatts. For this purpose, the power is selected in each case matching with the liquid F to be sprayed and matching with the application and matching with the number of the nozzles”. The claimed power being critical is not disclosed.) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of US PGPUB 2019/0275537 A1 to Iwase et al. (“Iwase”).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Clam 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein the spray apparatus comprises a safety device (See Paragraphs 0033-0034 disclosing controlling circuitry #202 that powers #318 that has a DC voltage converter #204 and comparator circuitry #206. See Paragraph 0081 disclosing a switch #222 that can deenergize #204 to deactivate #206)
Regarding Claim 3, Kelly does not disclose wherein the safety device reduces an operating voltage to a safety voltage of at most 120 V direct current when a safety device detects a current flow of greater than 10 microamps (See Paragraph 0033 disclosing a current in a range of 1 microamp to 10 microamps and See Paragraph 0034 disclosing #204 having short protection for DC voltage. Paragraph 0036 discloses a direct current power supply voltage of 3.6 V to 4.8 V, but reducing an operating voltage to a safety voltage of 120 V or less direct current when the safety device detects a current flow of more than 10 microamps is not specifically disclosed).
However, Iwase discloses, in the same field of endeavor of electrostatic spraying (See Paragraph 0002) a spray apparatus (See Fig. 2) comprising a safety device by which an operating voltage is reduced to a safety voltage when the safety device detects a current flow beyond a desired current (See Paragraphs 0042-0043 disclosing a controller shutting off a power supply when a current value is abnormal).
Therefore, 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 spray apparatus of Kelly as applied above such that the safety device reduces an operating voltage to a safety voltage of below 120 V direct current when the safety device detects a current flow of greater than 10 microamps by shutting off the power supply and/or voltage converter of Kelly, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Iwase to yield the predictable result of avoiding dangerous operating conditions by reducing risk of spark (See Iwase Paragraph 0069).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of US Patent 5,433,387 A to Howe et al. (“Howe”).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied to Claim 1 above, Kelly further discloses wherein
the at least one nozzle comprises a contact body (See CB in Annotated Fig. 7A, which is equivalent to CF. Paragraph 0094 discloses that #704 contacts the nozzle case, and CB is a lower portion of the case that #704 rests on),
the contact body encases a section of the electrode and is connected to a high-voltage feed line (See Annotated Fig. 7A, the contact body surrounds parts of the electrode and is connected to #704 per Paragraph 0093 and high voltage is provided to #704 per Paragraph 0104, thus CB is electrically connected to a high voltage feed line)
the contact body is made of an electrically conductive material (See Paragraph 0094, CB is electrically conductive and is grounded),
the contact body forms a transition resistance between a contact point and the section of the electrode for providing a current flow for a shutdown sensor system (See Annotated Fig. 7A and Paragraphs 0094 and 0101, the contact body forms some level of resistance between where it contacts #704 and portions of the electrode such that some current can flow. Such a flowing current is capable of being utilized in some shutdown sensor system. The shutdown sensor system is not positively recited as part of the claimed spray apparatus.),
the contact body is formed as a stopper (See Annotated Fig. 7A and See Fig. 7B. The contact body is a surface that #704 rests against such that CB is a stopper structure),
the contact body forms the connection flange and is received in the nozzle body or that the contact body is received in the connection flange (See Annotated Fig. 7A, the contact body CB forms the connection flange CF and is within the surrounding nozzle body NB),
the high-voltage feed line is formed as a guide plate (#704) and the contact body is contacted by means of the guide plate (See Figs. 7A-7B and Paragraph 0094), and
the contact body is formed conically tapering toward the spray opening (See Fig. 7B and Paragraph 0095, the contact body has orifices #728 that conically taper in a rounded manner toward the spray opening).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the spray apparatus of Kelly as applied above, Kelly does not specifically disclose wherein the contact body is made of an electrically conductive synthetic polymer (See Paragraph 0094 disclosing that #720 is electrically conductive, but specific materials are not disclosed).
However, Howe discloses, in the same field of endeavor of electrostatic spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 4-5) a spray apparatus (See Fig. 7) comprising a contact body (#66) that is made of an electrically conductive synthetic polymer (See Col. 10 Lines 24-30 disclosing conductive polymers and Col. 11 Lines 36-52 disclosing a material based on polypyrrole.).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, 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 spray apparatus of Kelly as applied above such that the contact body is made of the electrically conductive synthetic polymer of Howe since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a material that can distribute charge uniformly (See Howe Col. 10 Lines 25-30) and avoid contributing to ignition failures (See Howe Col. 11 Lines 45-52).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights