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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an erroneous comma directly before the period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends in a comma. This is incorrect punctuation for the end of a claim and needs to be changed to a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 46 is 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 46 recites the limitation "the threaded connections" in line 2, “cage” in line 4 and “clamping ring” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 34, from which claim 46 depends, does not include any threaded connections, a cage, or a clamping ring and as such it is entirely unclear as to which threaded connections are being referred to or if the cage and/or clamping ring in question are meant to refer to the same structure recited in claims 37 and 38. Further, as claims 37 and 38 are separately dependent on claim 36, it should be noted that there is currently no dependent claim that recites both the cage and the clamping ring in the same dependency chain.
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 21-24, 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US Pub No 2010/0282865 A1).
Re claim 21, Yamada shows a bell cup for a rotary atomizer (Figs. 19-21) for spraying coating agent, with
a) a spray-off body (21) with an annular circumferential spraying edge (22B) for spraying off the coating agent,
b) a hub part (24) for mounting the bell cup on a rotatable hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer, and
c) a fastening arrangement (Figs. 20 & 21) for form-fittingly fastening of the bell cup (21) to the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer,
d) wherein the fastening arrangement has, in the outer circumferential surface of the hub part (14), an annularly circumferential clamping surface (97A) which is inclined with respect to the axis of rotation of the bell cup (21) and is intended for bearing against a clamping element (95) of the rotary atomizer, in order to clamp the bell cup (21) firmly on the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer with an axial clamping force.
Re claim 22, Yamada shows a) the hub part of the bell cup comprises a centering cone (24C) on the outside for bearing against a complementarily shaped centering cone (15C) in the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer,
b) the centering cone (24C) on the bell cup tapers in the proximal direction,
c) the centering cone (24C) on the bell cup runs concentrically to the axis of rotation of the bell cup.
Re claim 23, Yamada shows a) the hub part of the bell cup comprises a plane surface (24B) on the outside for bearing against the end face of the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer, so that the plane surface forms an axial stop,
b) the plane surface (24B) is ring-shaped circumferential with respect to the axis of rotation of the bell cup (21),
c) the plane surface (24B) runs concentrically to the axis of rotation of the bell cup,
d) the plane surface (24B) is aligned essentially at right angles to the axis of rotation of the bell cup,
e) the plane surface (24B) adjoins the centering cone (24C) in the axial direction,
f) the plane surface (24B) is located in the axial direction between the centering cone (24C) and the spray-off edge (22B).
Re claim 24, Yamada shows the hub part (24) of the bell cup has a receptacle (93) for a driver (92/92A), wherein the driver (92/92A) projects as a projection (92A) in the axial direction from a clamping ring (92) in the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer and, in the assembled state (Fig. 20), projects in the axial direction into the receptacle (93) in the hub part (24) of the bell cup, so that the bell cup (21) co-rotates the clamping ring (92) during a rotation during assembly.
Re claim 32, Yamada shows the spray-off body (21) and the hub part (24) are in one piece and together form a uniform component.
Re claim 34, Yamada shows a rotary atomizer (Figs. 19-21) for spraying coating agent, having
a) a rotatably mounted hollow shaft (14) for rotating a bell cup (21), and
b) a fastening arrangement (Figs. 20 & 21) for form-fittingly fastening of the bell cup (21) to the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer,
c) wherein the fastening arrangement comprises, in the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer, at least one clamping element (95) for bearing against a clamping surface (97A) of the bell cup (21), in order to clamp the bell cup (21) with an axial clamping force on the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer.
Re claim 35, Yamada shows a) the at least one clamping element is a rolling element (95), and
b) the clamping element (95) has a range of motion in the radial direction in the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer, and
c) the clamping element (95) in a radially inward clamping position (Fig. 21) clamps the bell cup (21) on the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer, and
d) the clamping element (95) in a radially outwardly located release position (Fig. 20) releases the bell cup (21) in order to enable assembly or disassembly of the bell cup (21).
Re claim 36, Yamada shows a) a cage (96) is provided for radially movably holding the clamping element (95) in the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer,
b) the cage (96) with the clamping element (95) is arranged in the hollow shaft (14) of the rotary atomizer,
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US Pat No 5,078,321).
Re claim 34, Davis et al. show a rotary atomizer (Fig. 1) for spraying coating agent, having
a) a rotatably mounted hollow shaft (20/34) for rotating a bell cup (16), and
b) a fastening arrangement (col. 4, lines 6-8) for form-fittingly fastening of the bell cup (16) to the hollow shaft (2034) of the rotary atomizer,
c) wherein the fastening arrangement comprises, in the hollow shaft (20/34) of the rotary atomizer, at least one clamping element (“threadably secured”) for bearing against a clamping surface (“threadably secured”) of the bell cup (16), in order to clamp the bell cup (16) with an axial clamping force on the hollow shaft (20/34) of the rotary atomizer.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Pub No 2010/0282865 A1) in view of Schneider (US Pat No 5,707,009).
Re claim 25, Yamada shows a) an outer circumferential surface (22) leading to the spray-off edge (22B) of the bell cup (21), the outer circumferential surface (22) widening in the spray-off direction.
Yamada does not teach b) an outer rinsing chamber for rinsing the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup with a rinsing agent, the outer rinsing chamber being located on the rear side of the bell cup and running around in an annular manner,
c) at least one outer rinsing channel for supplying the rinsing agent, the outer rinsing channel starting from a rinsing agent supply in the interior of the bell cup and opening into the outer rinsing chamber at its outlet opening,.
However, Schneider shows a) an outer circumferential surface (5) leading to the spray-off edge (3) of a bell cup (1), the outer circumferential surface (5) widening in the spray-off direction,
b) an outer rinsing chamber (15) for rinsing the outer circumferential surface (5) of the bell cup (1) with a rinsing agent, the outer rinsing chamber (15) being located on the rear side of the bell cup (1) and running around in an annular manner (col. 3, lines 26-27),
c) at least one outer rinsing channel (18/29) for supplying the rinsing agent, the outer rinsing channel (18/29) starting from a rinsing agent supply (9’) in the interior of the bell cup (1) and opening into the outer rinsing chamber (15) at its outlet opening (end of 18).
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 have the bell cup of Yamada include a rinsing chamber and rinsing channel as taught by Schneider for cleaning the conical outer surface of the bell cup (Schneider – col. 3, lines 38-39).
Re claim 28, Yamada as modified by Schneider show a) the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) forms a deflection in the section between the hub part and the spray-off body with a change in direction of the rinsing agent flow in the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29),
b) the rinsing agent in the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) upstream of the outlet opening (Schneider – end of 18) of the outer rinsing channel flows in a distal direction,
c) the rinsing agent is discharged from the outlet opening (Schneider – end of 18) of the outer rinsing channel in proximal direction into the outer rinsing chamber (Schneider – 15).
Re claim 29, Yamada as modified by Schneider disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the rinsing agent flow emerging from the outlet opening of the outer rinsing channel into the outer rinsing chamber is aligned essentially parallel to the axis of rotation of the bell cup. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the rinsing agent exiting the outlet opening be aligned essentially parallel to the axis of rotation of the bell cup, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the angle the rinsing agent exits the outlet opening which achieves the recognized result of spreading the rinsing fluid across the base surface or inner surface and the radial outer side wall of the annular space (Schneider – col. 3, lines 44-46), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range.
Re claim 30, Yamada as modified by Schneider show the rinsing agent flow emerging from the outlet opening (Schneider – end of 18) of the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) into the outer rinsing chamber (Schneider – 15) is inclined outwardly (col. 3, lines 44-46).
Re claim 31, Yamada as modified by Schneider show the rinsing agent flow emerging from the outlet opening (Schneider – end of 18) of the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) into the outer rinsing chamber (Schneider – 15) is inclined inwards (col. 3, lines 44-46).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Pub No 2010/0282865 A1) in view of Schneider (US Pat No 5,707,009) and further in view of Davis et al. (US Pat No 5,078,321).
Re claim 26, Yamada as modified by Schneider show the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) runs over a section of its length between the hub part and the spray-off body).
Yamada as modified by Schneider do not teach the spray-off body and the hub part are separate components which are connected to one another by a screw connection of the hub part to the spray-off body.
However, Davis et al. show a spray-off body (56) and a hub part (18) that are separate components which are connected to one another by a screw connection (col. 4, lines 60-61) of the hub part (18) to the spray-off body (56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spray-off body and hup part as separate components, 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. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claim 27, Yamada as modified by Schneider and Davis et al. show the outer rinsing channel (Schneider – 18/29) between the hub part and the spray-off body is an annular channel which runs annularly around the entire circumference (col. 3, lines 10-11).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Pub No 2010/0282865 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US Pat No 5,078,321).
Re claim 33, Yamada discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the spray-off body and the hub part are separate components which are connected to one another by a screw connection of the hub part to the spray-off body.
However, Davis et al. show a spray-off body (56) and a hub part (18) that are separate components which are connected to one another by a screw connection (col. 4, lines 60-61) of the hub part (18) to the spray-off body (56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spray-off body and hup part as separate components, 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. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US Pat No 5,078,321) in view of Yamada (US Pub No 2010/0282865 A1).
Re claim 46, Davis shows the threaded connections of the fastening arrangements between the following components:
a1) cage (36, shown with a threaded connection) and the hollow shaft (20/34) of the rotary atomizer,
a2) hub part (18) and spray-off body (56) of the bell cup (col. 4, lines 60-61), and
a3) hollow shaft (20/34) of the rotary atomizer and clamping ring (col. 4, lines 6-8).
Davis et al. does not disclose the threaded connections each having a right-hand thread, and the rotary atomizer is designed to rotate the hollow shaft to the left during coating operation, so that a deceleration and, in particular, a blockade of the rotary movement of the hollow shaft leads to a tightening of the right-hand threads of the threaded connections.
However, Yamada discloses that threaded connections of the fastening arrangements each have a right-hand thread, and the rotary atomizer is designed to rotate the hollow shaft to the left during coating operation, so that a deceleration and, in particular, a blockade of the rotary movement of the hollow shaft leads to a tightening of the right-hand threads of the threaded connections (paragraph 0005).
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 threaded connections in Davis et al. with the inverse threading taught by Yamada to prevent dislodgement of the rotary atomizing head off of the rotation shaft under the influence of rotation of the motor (Yamada – paragraph 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: none of the references found disclose ore render obvious the rotary atomizer according to claim 36, wherein a) the cage is substantially hollow-cylindrical in shape, and b) the cage is screwed with an external thread into an internal thread of the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer; the rotary atomizer according to claim 36, wherein a) a clamping ring is provided for moving the clamping element from the outwardly located release position to the inwardly located clamping position, b) the clamping ring is arranged in the annular gap between the cage and the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, c) the clamping ring is connected to the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer by a screw connection, the screw connection having an external thread on the clamping ring and an internal thread in the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, so that a rotation of the clamping ring leads to a corresponding axial displacement of the clamping ring in the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, and d) the clamping ring has at its proximal end a clamping surface which is angled with respect to the axis of rotation of the bell cup and widens in the proximal direction, so that the clamping ring, when moving in the proximal direction, presses the clamping element radially inwards into the clamping position; the rotary atomizer according to claim 38, wherein the clamping element is pressed outwardly against the clamping surface of the clamping ring during coating operation when the hollow shaft rotates due to the centrifugal forces occurring and thereby axially braces the screw connection between the clamping ring and the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, so that the frictional forces in the screw connection between the clamping ring and the hollow shaft increase with the rotational speed; the rotary atomizer according to claim 38, wherein the driver projects from the clamping ring in the axial distal direction and engages in a receptacle in the hub part of the bell cup, so that the bell cup also rotates the clamping ring during a rotation during assembly or disassembly; the rotary atomizer according to claim 38, wherein a) in the assembled state of the bell cup a certain axial clamping force acts on the clamping ring, b) the angled clamping surface of the clamping ring exerts a certain surface-normal clamping force on the clamping element in the assembled state, c) the clamping surface of the clamping ring is angled to the axis of rotation of the bell cup in such a way that a certain force transmission ratio occurs between the axial clamping force on the clamping ring on the one hand and the surface-normal clamping force on the clamping element on the other hand, d) the force transmission ratio is at most 1:8 and is greater than 1:1; the rotary atomizer according to claim 38, wherein a) in the assembled state of the bell cup a certain axial clamping force acts on the clamping ring, b) in the screw connection between the clamping ring and the hollow shaft a certain frictional force occurs which depends on the axial clamping force on the clamping ring, and c) the ratio between the frictional force on the one hand and the axial clamping force on the clamping ring on the other hand is at least 0.5:1 and at most 1:6; the rotary atomizer according to claim 36, wherein a) the cage contains several pairs of clamping elements distributed over the circumference, and b) the pairs of clamping elements are evenly distributed over the circumference, and d) the distance between the clamping elements within a pair is smaller than the distance between the clamping elements of adjacent pairs; the rotary atomizer according to claim 35, wherein a) the at least one clamping element of the fastening arrangement in the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer on the one hand and the clamping surface of the bell cup on the other hand consist of different materials, b) the at least one clamping element of the fastening arrangement in the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer consists of ceramic, c) the clamping surface of the bell cup is made of steel; and the rotary atomizer according to claim 38, wherein a) the clamping connection between the angled clamping surface of the clamping ring on the one hand and the clamping element on the other hand is self-locking, and/or b) the clamping ring has an undulating section in longitudinal section in order to make the clamping ring elastically compliant in the axial direction.
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