Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/659,306

Spray Head Improvements for an Ultrasonic Spray Coating Assembly

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 09, 2024
Examiner
THOMAS, BINU
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ultrasonic Systems, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
582 granted / 804 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 804 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the terms “thereby” or “whereby” in the claims is improper. It is noted that the courts have held that functional “whereby” statements do not define any structure, and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Mason, 114 USPQ 127, 44 CCPA 937 (1957). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In claim 1, line 13, "the first region" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as a first region. In claim 1, line 16, the use of "close proximity" is deemed vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what would constitute "close proximity with the first region." In claim 1, line 17, "said liquid supply applicator" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the liquid applicator. In claim 1, line 18, "the output orifice" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the orifice. In claim 2, lines 1-2, "the surface feed blade" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as a surface of the feed blade. In claim 2-line 2-3, claim 6-line 1, claim 7-line 1, claim 8-line 1, "the surface wave" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the surface wave component. In claim 3, line 1, "the inside orifice" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as an inside orifice. In claim 3-line 2, claim 5-line 4, "the liquid supply applicator" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the liquid applicator. In claim 4, line 1, "the output orifice" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as an orifice of the primary gas director. In claim 4, line 3, "the impingement surface" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as the side surface of the spray forming tip opposite said feed blade. In claim 4, Applicants recite that the output orifice of the primary gas director is “extended” to bring the output orifice closer to the impingement surface of the spray forming head. It is unclear whether this means that primary gas director in total move? does only the output orifice move? The language as set forth is written in a process limiting manner without any structure to provide the claimed function. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite clear structure. Clarification is necessary. In claims 6, 7 and 8, Applicants recite that a more uniform thickness, more uniform liquid film or uniform liquid film is deemed vague and indefinite. It is unclear how to distinguish a difference uniform film from a more uniform film. In claim 9, lines 1-2, "the extended output orifice" lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as an elongated output orifice. In claim 11, line 2, "the modified feed blade surface, the modified liquid supply applicator orifice" lacks antecedent basis, when dependent to claim 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claims 6-8, applicants recite functional language which describes the effect of the surface wave component on the liquid. These recitations present functional language without adding any further structure or modifying claimed structure to the apparatus of claim 1. In claim 11, applicants recite phrase(s) which is found in claims 2 or 3 and thus not further limiting. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erickson (US 2013/0264397). In regards to claim 1, Erickson discloses an ultrasonic spray coating system comprising: an ultrasonic converter which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy provided as vibrations (fig. 1; para. 12); a spray head assembly connected to the ultrasonic converter, the spray head assembly has a spray forming head with a spray forming tip which provides planar opposing side surfaces, the spray forming tip terminates at a planar atomizing surface, where one side of the side surfaces is a feed blade that is perpendicular to the atomizing surface (fig. 1-4; para. 13); a high frequency alternating generator electrically connected to the ultrasonic converter and produces a controllable level and frequency of electrical energy at an operating frequency of the spray forming head and ultrasonic converter, where the atomizing surface is uniformly displaced in a normal direction by the vibrations and wherein a surface wave component is induced along the feed blade, the surface wave component being in a direction toward the atomizing surface (fig. 1-3; para. 14); a liquid applicator is provided adjacent to but spaced apart from the feed blade, the liquid applicator has an output surface which provides a liquid orifice which liquid is supplied form the liquid orifice to the feed blade and is caused to flow to the atomizing surface due to the surface wave component and atomizes to a spray (fig. 1-2, 5-6; para. 15); a controllable gas entrainment mechanism associated with the spray forming head, the gas entrainment mechanism includes a primary gas director for directing a first stream of gas at a region of the side surface of the spray forming tip opposite the feed blade at an angle less than 90o, where the first stream of gas impinges off the region and forms a fan-shaped air pattern in a direction normal to the atomizing surface for affecting and controlling said spray (fig. 1; para. 16). In regards to claim 2, Erickson discloses the feed blade comprises channels which redirect and concentrate the surface wave component to provide a surface wave with directional components in the x, y and z planes (fig. 9). In regards to claim 3, Erickson discloses the liquid orifice comprise a series of liquid guide channels to form a liquid flow guide (fig. 10). In regards to claim 4, Erickson discloses the primary gas director is extended to position the air orifice closer to the spray forming tip (fig. 1; abstract). In regards to claim 5, Erickson discloses a syringe pump which is a positive displacement pump delivers liquid to the spray forming tip at a precise flow rate independent of the associated resistance to flow created by the liquid guide channels (fig. 13; para. 48, 91). In regards to claims 6-8, Erickson discloses the structural features of the applicant’s claims and will be capable of functioning in the same manner as stated in claims 6-8. In regards to claim 9, Erickson discloses the air orifice enables the ultrasonically produced spray to be expanded to a greater expanded width by more than a factor of 2 (para. 19). In regards to claims 10-11, Erickson discloses the combination of the feed blade having channels and the liquid orifice having guide channels enables a uniform spray to be produced by the spray forming tip at a substantially lower flow rate (para. 20), where the uniform spray enables uniform coating. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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. /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601053
DOG BONE EXHAUST SLIT TUNNEL FOR PROCESSING CHAMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600147
PRETREATMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594596
MICRODROPLET-BASED THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) LASER PRINTING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594568
LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS, LIQUID DISCHARGE METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589586
POST-PRINT VACUUM DEGASSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 804 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month