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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 21 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 11-20 remain pending in the application.
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: “a glaze storage and adjustment device…for storing and stirring glaze” in claim 11, “a transfer isolation device…for receiving the glaze in the glaze storage adjustment device” in claim 11, “a driving mechanism…for driving the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun to move” in claim 16, “a temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module” in claim 16, and “a full-automatic cleaning control module” in claim 16.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: for the glaze storage and adjustment device, an isolation platform, a glaze storage barrel, a first stirrer, a first conveying pump, a first discharge device, and a liquid level measuring device, as described in paragraphs 19-24; for the transfer isolation device, an isolation workbench, a transfer isolation glaze barrel, a second conveying pipe, a second stirrer, and a second discharge device, as described in paragraphs 26-30; for the driving mechanism and temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module and full-automatic cleaning control module, no structure appears to be disclosed.
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.
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 11-20 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 11 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the term “all-water” in line 3. At face value this appears to require only water, but this contradicts the term “slurry” later in the claim, which implies additional components. The Specification further describes that the “all-water electrostatic working slurry” includes other components; therefore, this term will be interpreted only to require water to be a component of the slurry. Further, the limitation in the last line of the claim to a range of the specific gravity of the slurry should be exactly 1 if the slurry is “all-water”.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, claim limitations “driving mechanism”, “temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module”, and “full-automatic cleaning control module” all invoke 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. 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.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as being indefinite for depending from indefinite claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the phrase “based on the electrostatic spraying equipment according the claim 11”. Does this require the method to be performed using this electrostatic spraying equipment, or does it require something else? For the purposes of examination, the former will be assumed. To overcome this rejection, the claim should be amended to recite the step of “providing the electrostatic spraying equipment according the claim 11”.
Claim 19 is further rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the term “all-water”. At face value this appears to require only water, but this contradicts the term “slurry” later in the claim, which implies additional components. The Specification further describes that the “all-water electrostatic working slurry” includes other components; therefore, this term will be interpreted only to require water to be a component of the slurry.
Claim 20 is rejected as being indefinite for depending from claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected as being indefinite because it appears to recite steps and elements that have already been recited, which makes it unclear if these steps/elements are referring to those already recited or to new steps/elements. For example, line 10 recites “a transfer isolation device”, which was already recited by Claim 19, from which Claim 20 depends.
Further, Claim 20 recites the limitations "the speed" in line 26, “the rotating speed” in line 26, and “the spraying process” in line 28. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebe et al. (US 2006/0177592) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 2020/0230630).
Regarding claim 11, Takebe discloses an electrostatic spraying equipment (10), comprising:
a glaze storage and adjustment device (16a/b/c, par. 2 – “coating material supply source”), the glaze storage and adjustment device configured for storing glaze (par. 2); and produce an all-water electrostatic working slurry (par. 40 – elements 16/a/b/c are “capable of supplying electrically conductive coating materials”; further, this is not a positive recitation of an “all-water electrostatic working slurry, but only a functional limitation to the glaze storage and adjustment device);
a transfer isolation device (20/26), the transfer isolation device connected with the glaze storage and adjustment device (figs. 1, 2) and configured for receiving the glaze in the glaze storage and adjustment device (par. 53);
an electrostatic spray gun (40), the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun connected with a transfer isolation glaze barrel (26a, see fig. 1, par. 43) and configured for receiving the glaze in the transfer isolation glaze barrel and spraying the glaze to a body to be glazed on a glaze line (par. 58); and
a high-voltage electrostatic generator (par. 43 – “high-voltage applying means”), the high-voltage electrostatic generator connected with the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun and configured for electrifying the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (par. 43, 58);
wherein specific gravity of the all-water electrostatic working slurry is 1.5-1.85 (par. 40 – elements 16/a/b/c are “capable of supplying electrically conductive coating materials”).
Takebe does not disclose that the glaze storage and adjustment device is configured for stirring glaze, the spray gun is a rotary cup spray gun, or a programmable logic controller intelligent controller, the PLC intelligent controller connected with the glaze storage and adjustment device, the transfer isolation device and the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun.
Matsunaga teaches an electrostatic spraying equipment (par. 65; figs. 1, 2) comprising a glaze storage and adjustment device (14/28/30) is configured for stirring glaze (par. 58), a transfer isolation device (40), an electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (102, see par. 65), and a programmable logic controller intelligent controller (22), the PLC intelligent controller connected with the glaze storage and adjustment device (fig. 2), the transfer isolation device (fig. 2; par. 72) and the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic spraying equipment of Takebe such that the glaze storage and adjustment device is configured for stirring glaze, the spray gun is a rotary cup spray gun, and a programmable logic controller intelligent controller, the PLC intelligent controller connected with the glaze storage and adjustment device, the transfer isolation device and the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun, as all taught by Matsunaga. These modifications would provide a means for combining different glazes to form a new glaze, for efficiently applying the glaze to the body to be glazed, and for controlling all aspects of the equipment, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Takebe in view of Matsunaga discloses an electrostatic spraying method (par. 78) realized based on the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 11, comprising the following steps: preparing the all-water electrostatic working slurry (Matsunaga, par. 46); conveying the all-water electrostatic working slurry to a transfer isolation device through a glaze storage and adjustment device (par. 68); starting a PLC intelligent controller and a high-voltage electrostatic generator, controlling an electrostatic rotary cup spray gun to swing for glazing according to working glazing amount (par. 72); after glazing, turning off the high-voltage electrostatic generator and discharging (it is well known to turn off the electrostatic generator when it is no longer being used); and cleaning pipelines in the electrostatic spraying equipment (par. 84, 85, 86, 88).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebe in view of Matsunaga and further in view of Nagai (US 2006/0081729).
Regarding claim 12, Takebe in view of Matsunaga discloses the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 11, and further wherein the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun comprises a gun barrel and a gun head which are connected with each other and mounted coaxially, an insulating gun holster sleeves the gun barrel, and an insulating waterproof cap is arranged on the insulating gun holster.
Nagai teaches an electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (4) comprises a gun barrel (3) and a gun head (2) which are connected with each other and mounted coaxially (fig. 5), an insulating gun holster (8) sleeves the gun barrel (fig. 5), and an insulating waterproof cap (7) is arranged on the insulating gun holster (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic spraying equipment of Takebe in view of Matsunaga such that the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun comprises a gun barrel and a gun head which are connected with each other and mounted coaxially, an insulating gun holster sleeves the gun barrel, and an insulating waterproof cap is arranged on the insulating gun holster, as taught by Nagai. This would prevent anyone from being electrically shocked by the spray gun.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebe in view of Matsunaga and further in view of Hirana et al. (US 2005/0181142).
Regarding claim 16, Takebe in view of Matsunaga discloses the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 11, and Matsunaga further teaches a driving mechanism (100), the driving mechanism arranged above the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (fig. 1), connected with the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (fig. 1; par. 64), and configured for driving the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun to move (par. 64), and the driving mechanism also connected with the PLC intelligent controller (par. 72; fig. 2), and a full-automatic cleaning control module (par. 78). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the electrostatic spraying equipment of Takebe to include the driving mechanism and cleaning control module of Matsunaga since the driving mechanism would allow the spray gun to be moved to spray different areas of a body and the cleaning control module would clean any glaze remaining in the fluid conduit of the system.
But, Takebe in view of Matsunaga does not further disclose wherein the electrostatic spraying equipment also comprises: an electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet, the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet; and an air compressor, the air compressor internally provided with a temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module, the air compressor configured for providing a high-pressure air source and connected with the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun.
Hirana teaches electrostatic spraying equipment (1) comprising: an electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet (70), an electrostatic spray gun (1) arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet (fig. 22); and an air compressor (102), the air compressor internally provided with a temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module (par. 140), the air compressor configured for providing a high-pressure air source and connected with the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (fig. 22; par. 140).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic spraying equipment of Takebe in view of Matsunaga to further include an electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet, the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet; and an air compressor, the air compressor internally provided with a temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module, the air compressor configured for providing a high-pressure air source and connected with the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun, as taught by Hirana. These modification would contain the glaze within a designated area and would ensure the conditions within that area are optimal for applying the glaze to the body.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebe in view of Matsunaga and Hirana, and further in view of Uemura (US 2019/0067043).
Regarding claim 18, Takebe in view of Matsunaga and Hirana discloses the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 16, but not further comprising a glaze recycle disc, the glaze recycle disc arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet and placed under the glaze line to recycle atomized glaze.
Uemura teaches a spraying equipment (fig. 1) comprising a glaze recycle disc (6), the glaze recycle disc arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet and placed under the glaze line to recycle atomized glaze (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic spraying equipment of Takebe in view of Matsunaga and Hirana to further include a glaze recycle disc, the glaze recycle disc arranged in the electrostatic glaze spraying cabinet and placed under the glaze line to recycle atomized glaze, as taught by Uemura, since this would reduce waste and allowed unused glazing to be recycled and reused, both of which would reduce costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, Takebe in view of Matsunaga discloses the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 11, and Matsunaga further teaches wherein,
the glaze storage and adjustment device comprises: an isolation platform (12); a glaze storage barrel (par. 43 – “tanks”), the glaze storage barrel being arranged on the isolation platform and configured for storing glaze (fig. 2); a first conveying pump, the first conveying pump being arranged on the isolation platform and configured for conveying the glaze to the transfer isolation glaze barrel (par. 43 – “pump”);
the transfer isolation device comprises: a transfer isolation glaze barrel (72), the transfer isolation glaze barrel configured for receiving the glaze conveyed by the first conveying pump (par. 52); a second conveying pipe (74), the second conveying pipe connected with the transfer isolation glaze barrel and configured for conveying the glaze to the electrostatic rotary cup spray gun (par. 49; fig. 2); a second stirrer (90), the second stirrer arranged in the transfer isolation glaze barrel (fig. 2) and configured for stirring the glaze in the transfer isolation glaze barrel (par. 58).
But, Takebe in view of Matsunaga does not disclose a stirrer arranged in the glaze storage barrel and configured for stirring the glaze in the glaze storage barrel; or a first discharge device arranged on the isolation platform and configured for discharging static electricity generated by the glaze storage barrel; or a liquid level measuring device, arranged above the glaze storage barrel and configured for measuring the liquid level of the glaze storage barrel; or an isolation workbench on which the transfer isolation glaze barrel is arranged; or a second discharge device arranged on the isolation workbench and configured for discharging static electricity generated by the transfer isolation glaze barrel.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowable because they depend from claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Takebe in view of Matsunaga and Hirana discloses the electrostatic spraying equipment according to claim 16, but not further wherein the cabinet has an upper cabinet body made of high-density polyethylene and a lower cabinet body made of stainless steel.
Regarding claim 20, Takebe in view of Matsunaga discloses the method according to claim 19, but not further wherein comprising determining a ball-milling formula of water-based glaze according to current temperature and humidity and determining an additive formula, adjusting parameters of the original glaze according to the additive formula to reach working physical and chemical indexes and working specific gravity, in combination with the other recited steps of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretations and the associated 112(b) rejections of claim 16, Applicant argues that structures for each of these limitations is described in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the Specification. While these paragraphs mention each of the “driving mechanism”, “temperature and humidity control air conditioning control module”, and “full-automatic cleaning control module”, no additional details regarding their associated structures are provided. Merely restating the 112(f) limitation is not sufficient to disclose the associated structures for performing the recited functions of each of these limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection for the term “all-water slurry” in claim 19, Applicant argues that such a composition is known to one skilled in the art. In response, it is noted that Applicant's argument amounts to a general allegation without any further supporting evidence. Further, Applicant has not addressed the specific issues identified regarding the reasons this term is indefinite. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 11, Applicant argues that Takebe in view of Matsunaga does not disclose the recited “all-water electrostatic working slurry” having a recited specific gravity. In response, it is noted that Takebe is interpreted to disclose this as explained in the rejection above.
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 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