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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The end of both claims recite “the nozzle” however for clarity and consistency, both claims should recite --the paint nozzle--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,924 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structure of the instant claims is present in claims 1-19.
Claims 8 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,924 B2 in view of Stanley (GB 154,736).
Re claims 8 & 18, the claims of US Pat No 12,121,924 disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the air channel comprises an air channel width that reduces towards the air outlet. However, Stanley shows an air channel (c) comprises an air channel width that reduces towards the air outlet (at J).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the apparatus of US Pat No. 12,121,924 B2 with an air channel width that reduces towards the air outlet as shown in Stanley to provide a nozzle that is capable of producing a flat spray, the width of which is variable at the same time capable of varying the velocity of the spray (p. 2, lines 6-12).
Re claims 12-17, 19 & 20, the claims of US Pat No 12,121,924 disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the air cap inner surface upstream of the convex curvilinear contour at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear concave profile, and the paint nozzle outer surface upstream of the concave curvilinear contour at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear convex profile.
However, Stanley shows an air cap inner surface upstream of the convex curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear concave profile (see annotated figure), and the paint nozzle outer surface upstream of the concave curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear convex profile (see annotated figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the apparatus of US Pat No. 12,121,924 B2 with an air cap inner surface upstream of the convex curvilinear contour also including a curvilinear concave profile, and a paint nozzle outer surface upstream of the concave curvilinear contour also including a curvilinear convex profile as shown in Stanley to provide a nozzle that is capable of producing a flat spray, the width of which is variable at the same time capable of varying the velocity of the spray (p. 2, lines 6-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanley (GB 154,736).
Re claim 1, Stanley shows a fluid tip (A/E) for use with a paint spray gun, the fluid tip comprising an air cap (E); and a paint nozzle (A)
wherein the air cap comprises an air cap inner surface (see annotated figure) and the paint nozzle comprises a paint nozzle outer surface (see annotated figure);
wherein the air cap inner surface and paint nozzle outer surface define sides of an air channel (through C) terminating at an air channel outlet (see annotated figure);
wherein the air cap inner surface comprises a convex curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) extending to the air channel outlet (see annotated figure); and
wherein the paint nozzle outer surface comprises a concave curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) extending to the air channel outlet (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 2 & 14, Stanley shows the air cap inner surface (see annotated figure) and paint nozzle outer surface (see annotated figure) terminate to form the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) for discharging an air jet proximal a paint nozzle outlet (see annotated figure) of the paint nozzle.
Re claim 3, Stanley shows the air cap inner surface and paint nozzle outer surface are configured to provide a velocity profile across the air channel outlet of an air flow through the air channel in which velocities of air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet consist of velocities higher than velocities radially further from the paint nozzle outlet (as the contours demonstrated by Stanley are the same as the claimed contours in the instant application, in that the contours demonstrated by Stanley include an air cap inner surface with a convex curvilinear contour and a paint nozzle outer surface with a concave curvilinear contour which converge in a similar manner as the claimed contours, the air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet will have “a velocity profile across the air channel outlet…in which velocities of air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet consist of velocities higher than velocities radially further from the paint nozzle outlet”).
Re claims 4 & 15, Stanley teaches a separation distance between the nozzle outlet (see annotated figure) and the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) is based on a predetermined viscosity of paint flowing through the paint nozzle outlet (p. 2, lines 6-9, as Stanley is intended to spray paint, the consideration of viscosity and other material properties must be taken into account, further, see MPEP 2115).
Re claims 5 & 16, Stanley teaches the separation distance is based on one or more of surface tension, density and dynamic viscosity of the paint flowing through the paint nozzle outlet (see annotated figure; as Stanley is intended to spray paint, the consideration of surface tension, density, dynamic viscosity and other material properties must be taken into account, further, see MPEP 2115).
Re claim 6, Stanley shows the air channel (C) and/or the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) surrounds the paint nozzle (A).
Re claim 7, Stanley shows the air channel (C) and/or the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) are annular around the nozzle (A).
Re claims 8 & 18, Stanley shows the air channel (C) comprises an air channel width that reduces towards the air channel outlet (see annotated figure).
Re claims 9 & 19, Stanley shows the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) is configured to discharge air in the same direction as paint discharged from the nozzle outlet (see annotated figure).
Re claims 10 & 20, Stanley shows one or more horns (G) protruding from an external surface of the air cap, each of the one or more horns comprising auxiliary air passages (H) configured to discharge an auxiliary air flow towards an atomization region downstream of the paint nozzle outlet (see annotated figure).
Re claim 11, Stanley shows a paint spray gun (K) comprising a fluid tip according to claim 1 (see above).
Re claim 12, Stanley shows the air cap inner surface upstream of the convex curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear concave profile (see annotated figure), and the paint nozzle outer surface upstream of the concave curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear convex profile (see annotated figure).
Re claim 13, Stanley shows a fluid tip (A/E) for use with a paint spray gun, the fluid tip comprising an air cap (E); and a paint nozzle (A)
wherein the air cap comprises an air cap inner surface (see annotated figure) and the paint nozzle comprises a paint nozzle outer surface (see annotated figure);
wherein the air cap inner surface and paint nozzle outer surface define sides of an air channel (through C) terminating at an air channel outlet (see annotated figure);
wherein the air cap inner surface comprises a convex curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) extending to the air channel outlet (see annotated figure); and
wherein the paint nozzle outer surface comprises a concave curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) extending to the air channel outlet (see annotated figure);
wherein the air cap inner surface and paint nozzle outer surface are configured to provide a velocity profile across the air channel outlet of an air flow through the air channel in which velocities of air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet consist of velocities higher than velocities radially further from the paint nozzle outlet (as the contours demonstrated by Stanley are the same as the claimed contours in the instant application, in that the contours demonstrated by Stanley include an air cap inner surface with a convex curvilinear contour and a paint nozzle outer surface with a concave curvilinear contour which converge in a similar manner as the claimed contours, the air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet will have “a velocity profile across the air channel outlet…in which velocities of air radially closer to the paint nozzle outlet consist of velocities higher than velocities radially further from the paint nozzle outlet”); and
wherein the air cap inner surface upstream of the convex curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear concave profile (see annotated figure), and the paint nozzle outer surface upstream of the concave curvilinear contour (see annotated figure) at the air channel outlet further comprises a curvilinear convex profile (see annotated figure).
Re claim 17, Stanley shows the air channel outlet (see annotated figure) extends annularly around the nozzle (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s remarks directed toward amended claim 1, applicant states at the top of page 11 “the annotated figure of Stanley discloses linear surfaces of an air channel at an outlet” however the surfaces in question that applicant is referring to, while somewhat blurry in the amended figure provided by applicant, are in fact curved in the required manner. An annotated figure has been provided above to help clearly establish a link between the claimed structure and the prior art structure, however a further annotated figure shall be provided below to better demonstrate the curved surfaces extending to and terminating at the air channel outlet:
PNG
media_image2.png
548
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be plainly seen in this close up of the top section of the main figure from the Stanley reference, the highlighted surfaces in question are curved.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752