DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on May 18, 2026, which has been fully considered in this action. Claims 24, 26, 30, 31, and 39 have been amended and claim 25 canceled. Claims 24, and 26-54 remain in the application and an action as to the merits follows.
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 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 39-54 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.
Regarding claim 39, line 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase, i.e. “for form-fittingly fastening”, are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The sentence should be rewritten as,
--atomizer for form-fittingly fastening-- to clearly define the invention.
Claim 40, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “with an axial clamping force” raises double inclusion issues, since such a recitation has now been provided in amended claim 24, lines 12 and 13. Language such as –with at least the axial clamping force-- should be used to clearly define the invention.
Claim 45, line 3, the phrase “the centrifugal force” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --a centrifugal force--.
Claim 45, line 5, the phrase “the frictional forces” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --frictional forces--.
Claim 47, line 2, the phrase “a certain axial clamping force” raises double inclusion issues, since such recitation of “at least an axial clamping force” has now been provided in amended claim 24, lines 12 and 13. It is not clear if this is the same “at least an axial clamping force” as recited in claim 24 or a new “certain axial clamping force”. Language such as --at least the axial clamping force-- should be used to clearly define the invention.
Claim 47, line 8, the phrase “the axial clamping force” raises double inclusion issues, since such a recitation of “at least an axial clamping force” has now been provided in amended claim 24, lines 12 and 13. It is not clear if this is the same “at least an axial clamping force” as recited in claim 24 or a new “axial clamping force”. Language such as --at least the axial clamping
force-- should be used to clearly define the invention.
Claim 48, line 2, the phrase “a certain axial clamping force” raises double inclusion issues, since such recitation of “at least an axial clamping force” has now been provided in amended claim 24, lines 12 and 13. It is not clear if this is the same “at least an axial clamping force” as recited in claim 24 or a new “certain axial clamping force”. Language such as --at least the axial clamping force-- should be used to clearly define the invention.
Claim 48, lines 5 and 6, the phrase “the axial clamping force” raises double inclusion issues, since such a recitation of “at least an axial clamping force” has now been provided in amended claim 24, lines 12 and 13. It is not clear if this is the same “at least an axial clamping force” as recited in claim 24 or a new “axial clamping force”. Language such as --at least the axial clamping force-- should be used to clearly define the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 26-38 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art being van der Steur et al ‘397 did not teach or suggest a bell cup for a rotary atomizer for spraying coating agent by the applicant, specifically a bell cup as currently amended in independent claimed 24, together in combination with the other claimed features of applicant’s invention and in view of applicant’s arguments which are well taken and found to be convincing.
Claims 39-54 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed May 18, 2026, with respect to claims 24, 29-34 and 36-38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 24, 29-34 and 36-38 has been withdrawn. However, due to the amendment to claim 39, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections were raised regarding claim 39, 40, 45, 47 and 48 and therefore, claims 39-54 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J GANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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 J. GANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN J GANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights