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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are twenty-two instances of the term “spay-off” used in the specification which is a typographical error, see for example on page 3, lines 28 and 30. All twenty-two terms should be changed to --spray-off--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Claim 39 recites in lines 2 and 3, “a bell cup according to one of the preceding claims” and then further recites in line 7, therein the bell cup is designed according to claim 1. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, since claims 40-54 depend from claim 39, claims 39-54 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 25-27, 30 and 31 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.
In claim 25, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “to clamp the bell cup firmly on the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer with an axial clamping force” is indefinite, since from Figure 2, and the Specification on page 16, lines 10-15, it appears that it is both the axial clamping force FAXIAL and the normal clamping force FSPANN or just the normal clamping force FSPANN that clamps the bell cup firmly on the hollow shaft.
In claim 30, lines 2 and 3 the phrase “spay-off” lacks antecedent basis and appears to be a typographical error. The phrase should be changed to --spray-off--.
In claim 31, line 11, the phrase “the outer” lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite since it is not clear what “the outer” is referring to. It is suggested that language such as --the outer boundary wall-- is used to clearly define the invention.
In claim 31, lines 11 and 12, the sentence “Boundary wall of the outer rinsing chamber flows in the proximal direction” is indefinite, is not clearly written and appears to be incomplete. It also seems that since the word “Boundary” is capitalized, that a new limitation was intended to be listed.
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 24-29 and 33-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-26 and 28-33 of copending Application No. 18/701,345. In regard to claim 24, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a bell cup for a rotary atomizer for spraying coating agent, comprising a spray-off body with an annular circumferential spray-off edge for spraying off the coating agent, an outer circumferential surface leading to the spray-off edge of the bell cup, a hub part for mounting the bell cup on a rotatable hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, and a fastening arrangement for fastening of the bell cup to the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, an outer rinsing chamber for rinsing the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup with a rinsing agent, and 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. Claim 24 is broader in scope than claims 21 and 25 of copending Application No. 18/701,345, and is therefore, encompassed in claims 21 and 25 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 25, see claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 26, see claim 22 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 27, see claim 23 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 28, see claim 24 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 29, see claims 25 and 26 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 33, see claim 28 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 34, see claim 29 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 35, see claim 30 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 36, see claim 31 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
As to claim 37, see claim 32 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.-38
As to claim 38, see claim 33 of copending Application No. 18/701,345.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 29, 31(as best understood), 33, 34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,851,397 B1(van der Steur et al).
As to claim 24, van der Steur et al ‘397 discloses a bell cup 11 for a rotary atomizer for spraying a coating agent comprising: a spray-off body 12/44 with an annular circumferential spray-off edge 13 for spraying off the coating agent, an outer circumferential surface 14 leading to the spray-off edge of the bell cup, a hub part 16 for mounting the bell cup on a rotatable hollow shaft 15 of the rotary atomizer, and a threaded fastening arrangement for fastening of the bell cup to the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, see col. 5, lines 50-54, an outer rinsing chamber 52 for rinsing the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup with a rinsing agent, see col. 8, lines 20-28, and at least one outer rinsing channel 54/56 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 at 58. See col. 1, line 13 through col. 9, line 4 and Figures 1-7.
As to claim 29, see Figure 6 and col. 5, lines 38-43.
As to claim 31(as best understood), see Figures 6 and 7 and col. 8, line 4-46.
As to claim 33, see Figures 6 and 7 and col. 8, lines 4-46.
As to claim 34, see Figure 6, wherein the rinsing agent flow emerging from the outlet opening at 54 of the outer rinsing channel 56 into the outer rinsing chamber 58 is aligned essentially parallel to the axis of rotation of the bell cup.
As to claim 36, see Figure 6, wherein the rinsing agent flow emerging from the outlet opening at 54 of the outer rinsing channel 56 into the outer rinsing chamber 58 is inclined inwards.
As to claim 37, see col. 5, lines 46-47.
As to claim 38, see col. 5, lines 38-43.
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.
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,851,397 B1(van der Steur et al) in view of US 7,080,796 B2(Tomiita).
As to claim 30, van der Steur et al ‘397 discloses that the hub part is mechanically connected to the spray-off body through welding, see col. 5, lines 38-43, except for through laser beam welding. Tomiita ‘796 discloses using laser beam welding to join two metal elements together in a nozzle. See col. 4, lines 33-35. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mechanically connect the hub part to the spray-off body through laser beam welding in the apparatus of van der Steur et al ‘397, as taught by Tomiita ‘796, since van der Steur et al ‘397 already teaches welding the hub part to the spray-off body, see col. 5, lines 38-43, and since laser beam welding is an effective welding technique since it uses a focused laser beam as the source of heat to join the pieces together.
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,851,397 B1(van der Steur et al).
As to claim 32, van der Steur et al ‘397 discloses wherein the fastening arrangement is designed such that the center of mass of the bell cup has an axial distance from the front end of the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer, except for an axial distance that is in the range of less than 5 cm. See Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an axial distance from the front end of the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer that is less than 5cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. In addition, the apparatus of van der Steur et al ‘397 would perform equally as well with an axial distance from the front end of the hollow shaft of the rotary atomizer that is less than 5cm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,861,945 B2(Yasuda et al) discloses a rotary atomizer with a cleaning operation.
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