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 with traverse of claims 32-39 and 52 in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that although Groups I-IV are distinct and independent, a thorough search for one of the Groups would encompass a search for the other Group. This is not found persuasive because Groups I-IV are distinct inventions and the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Baral. Furthermore, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26-31 and 40-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 32-39 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 32 appears to be missing “has” regarding at least one of the cleaning chambers at least one first spray nozzle. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as at least one of the cleaning chambers has at least one first spray nozzle.
Claims 33-39 are dependent upon claim 32.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 32-35, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baral (DE 10110098 A1 machine translation cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 25, Baral figures 1-2 teach a cleaning device for cleaning an electrode assembly with several finger-shaped external electrodes (3 electrode body) for electrostatic external charging on an atomizer (1 color bell) , comprising:
a) a first cleaning chamber (21 opening) with an insertion opening for receiving one of the finger-shaped external electrodes of the electrode assembly during a cleaning process, and
b) at least one second cleaning chamber (21 opening) with an insertion opening for receiving one of the finger-shaped external electrodes of the electrode assembly during the cleaning process, so that at least two of the finger-shaped external electrodes of the electrode assembly can be cleaned simultaneously during the cleaning process.[pages 2-3]
Regarding claim 32, figure 2 teaches at least one of the cleaning chambers (21 opening) has at least one first spray nozzle (26 outlet opening) is arranged to spray the outer surface of the finger-shaped external electrode (3 electrode body) with the cleaning fluid during the cleaning process.[page 3]
Regarding claim 33, figures 1-3 suggest at least one second spray nozzle (26 outlet opening directed in the direction of the axis of the openings 21 , which are distributed over the circumference of the supply pipes 25 and nozzles 31 which are arranged distributed
over their length and are directed against the electrode body 3 to be cleaned ) is arranged in at least one of the cleaning chambers in order to spray the free end of the external electrode with the cleaning fluid in the axial direction during the cleaning process, in particular axially from the front with respect to the external electrode to be cleaned.[page 3]
Regarding claim 34, figures 2-3 suggest the at least one first spray nozzle (26 outlet openings) is arranged in the respective cleaning chamber (21 opening) on the upper side near the insertion opening in the upper quarter or fifth of the cleaning chamber.
Regarding claim 35, Baral figure 2 suggests the first spray nozzle (26 outlet openings) is radially aligned in cross-section at right angles to the central axis of the respective cleaning chamber.
Regarding claim 39, figure 1 teaches
a) the second spray nozzle (31 nozzles) is arranged in the respective cleaning chamber on the underside, so that the second spray nozzle is located under the external electrode to be cleaned during the cleaning process, and
b) the second spray nozzle (31 nozzles) is arranged centrally in the respective cleaning chamber, and
c) the second spray nozzle (31 nozzle) is aligned parallel to the central axis of the respective
cleaning chamber and sprays the cleaning fluid upwards along the central axis of the respective cleaning chamber in the direction of the external electrode to be cleaned.[page 3]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baral (DE 10110098 A1 machine translation cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 36, Baral is silent to the first spray nozzle is inclined away from the insertion opening of the respective cleaning chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a configuration where the first spray nozzle is inclined away from the insertion opening of the respective cleaning chamber as a rearrangement of parts is an obvious design choice and will not alter the way in which the nozzles clean the electrode fingers.(MPEP 2144.04)
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baral, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Pfau (CN 105562383A machine translation).
Regarding claim 37, Baral is silent to the first spray nozzle is designed as a flat jet nozzle which emits a flat jet of the cleaning fluid.
Pfal is directed towards a cleaning a cleaning method and device for one or more components of a coating system where utilizing full jet nozzles, flat nozzle/fan nozzle, a rotating nozzle to improve the cleaning effect and/or improve dirt.[page 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a flat jet nozzle to improve the cleaning effect and/or improve dirt.[page 3]
Regarding claim 38, Pfal teaches utilizing full jet nozzles, flat nozzle/fan nozzle, a rotating nozzle to improve the cleaning effect and/or improve dirt thereby suggesting providing the first spray nozzle is designed as a full cone jet nozzle which emits a cone-shaped symmetrical jet of the cleaning fluid to be an obvious modification as an art recognized equivalent for the same purpose.(MPEP 2144.06)
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baral, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Aebersold (DE 3715969 C2 machine translation).
Regarding claim 52, Baral is silent to a) the cleaning chambers are arranged together on a rotary mechanism which can be rotated about an axis of rotation between different rotary positions, the cleaning chambers being aligned parallel to the axis of rotation, and in each of the rotary positions in each case a plurality of finger- shaped external electrodes can be cleaned simultaneously, b) a lifting mechanism is provided in order to lift the cleaning chambers together along the insertion direction and thereby to insert the finger-shaped external electrodes to be cleaned into the cleaning chambers or to remove them from the cleaning chambers.
Aebersold is directed towards a cleaning device where figure 2 teaches a cleaning device (46) consists of a rotatably mounted and drivable container (54) arranged on the lifting table (43) and g) with the lifting platform (43), the cleaning devices (46) can be raised in such a way and can be lowered.[page 3]
It would have been obvious to one rotary cleaning chambers and that are able to be lifted and thereby insert the finger-shaped external electrodes to provide an automatic cleaning system.[page 2]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights