CTNF 18/649,125 CTNF 80448 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3-6 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 3-6 further require liquid chamber at “both ends” and liquid chamber at the “central portion”; however, Claim 1 requires a plurality of liquid chambers and therefore the requirement of a liquid chamber at the central portion lacks antecedent basis as the claims merely require plurality of liquid chambers and thus do not require there to be a central portion, i.e. when there are two liquid chambers there is no liquid chamber arranged at the central portion. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated over US Patent Application Publication 20130284833 by Fritz et al . Fritz discloses a coating machine that coats the coating surface of an object to be coated with coating material discharged from a coating head, the coating machine comprising: a plurality of liquid chambers disposed along one direction of the coating head and each supplied with the coating material via independent branched supply channels; and discharge ports provided in a plurality of the liquid chambers (Figure 4B and accompanying text, Figure 21A and accompanying text). Claim 2: Fritz discloses the individual nozzle arrangements are actuatable or adjustable independently from one another (0172) and thus meets this claim requirement. Additionally the nozzles can reasonably be detached as evidenced by their distinct nature of Figure 4B, see 0126 related to group of two or more application apparatuses. Claim 3-4: Fritz discloses such at Figure 21A. Claim 5: Fritz discloses the shape of the ports is different, Figure 21A. Claim 6: Fritz discloses such at Figure 21A . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al . Claim 2: At the very least, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide separable application apparatus since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman , 168 USPQ 177,179.. Claim 3-4: Additionally, the number of discharge ports and arrangement of nozzles provided in the liquid chamber will be adjustable and a result effective variable, directly effecting the uniformity (0167) and therefore determination of the optimum number and arrangement of discharge nozzles would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a uniform coating. Claim 5: Fritz discloses varying the nozzle shape (166) and discloses that the respective application apparatus can be fitted with nozzles form that are the same or different size or form, i.e. shape, see 0166, and therefore determination of the optimum shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a uniform coating. Claim 6: Fritz discloses such at Figure 21A and the width of the chambers would directly affect the spray pattern and therefore determination of the optimum with would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a uniform coating . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. with JP 6979546, hereinafter JP 546 . Fritz discloses all that is taught above and discloses a device for coating with a plurality of nozzles, including automotive and discloses a supply channel provided corresponding to each of the liquid chambers and providing the coating material to the liquid chamber (See e.g. Figure 4B); however, fails to discloses the supply line particulars of claim 7. However, JP 546, also in the art of a device for coating with a plurality of nozzles, including automotive, discloses pressurizing means (gear pump 61, “The gear pump 61 draws in the paint stored in the paint tank 46 and sends out the drawn paint toward the paint head 4”) disposed in the supply channel and applying pressure to the coating material to deliver it towards the liquid chamber; a first valve disposed downstream from the pressurizing means in the supply channel (valves in supply line, 66) ; a reflux channel branched from a position downstream from the pressurizing means in the supply channel and upstream from the first valve and refluxing the coating material delivered from the pressurizing means to an upstream side of the pressurizing means in the supply channel (figure 2 and accompanying text, reflux line 50); a second valve disposed in the reflux channel (valve 71); and an opening/closing control part for opening/closing control of the first valve and the second valve (“control unit (not shown) that controls the operation of the paint head 47 and the paint circulation path 41”). As for the requirement for each supply channel, Fritz discloses individual supply channels to each liquid chamber and independently controlled each liquid chamber and therefore it would have been obvious to provide a gear pump in each line with a reasonable expectation that the liquid would be supplied to each. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Fritz to use the flow path/recirculation path as suggested by JP 546 to reap the benefits as provided by JP 546. Claim 8: JP 546 discloses open/close values that meets the claim requirement and the control unit controlling the operation of the paint circulation path and therefore meets the structure requirements of this claims (“control unit (not shown) that controls the operation of the paint head 47 and the paint circulation path 41”). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claims 9-10: JP 546 discloses the pressurizing means is a gear pump driven by a drive source (“The gear pump 61 draws in the paint stored in the paint tank 46 and sends out the drawn paint toward the paint head 4”) wherein the drive source simultaneously drives the gear pump provided in each of the supply channels (“The gear pump 61 is driven and controlled”). As for the requirement of gear pump in each supply channel, Fritz discloses individual supply channels to each liquid chamber and independently controlled each liquid chamber and therefore it would have been obvious to provide a gear pump in each line with a reasonable expectation that the liquid would be supplied to each liquid chamber. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 4 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 5 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 6 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 9 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/649,125 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights