Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/732,168

PAINTING SYSTEM NOZZLE INCLUDING A MAGNET

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Examiner
LEE, CHEE-CHONG
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nissan North America Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
500 granted / 780 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +53% interview lift
Without
With
+53.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
855
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.8%
+28.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on March 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-12, 14 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 10, 2026. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “painting system” in claim 1, where “system” is the placeholder and “painting” is the functional language. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 2 and 16 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. The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The magnitude, length or vector needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested. 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) 1, 2, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasa (US20170028467). With respect to claim 1, Rasa discloses a nozzle (10 and 16. Figs. 1-3) for a painting system, the nozzle comprising: a first electrode (30 of A); a second electrode (34 of C); a first magnet (18 of B) disposed (radially) between the first and second electrodes when viewed in a direction parallel to a longitudinal (vertical) axis of the nozzle (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); and a second magnet (18 of D) disposed between the first and second electrodes when viewed in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle, the first and second electrodes and the first and second magnets defining a passage (10 and 14. Fig. 2) through which paint is configured to (capable of) flow. With respect to claim 2, Rasa discloses the nozzle for the painting system according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second magnets (both sides of 18 in B and D) extends substantially longitudinally from a nozzle inlet (cylindrical area upstream of 14) to a nozzle outlet (14). With respect to claim 13, Rasa discloses a voltage-assisted painting system (Figs. 1-3. Molten metal jetting system of copper, silver, gold can be considered metallic paint) comprising: a housing (10 and 16) having a conduit (defined by 10. Fig. 2) configured to (capable of) receive paint from an external source; a power source (28. Fig. 1); and a nozzle (14) disposed in the housing, the nozzle having an inlet (cylindrical area upstream of 14) that is fluidly connected to the conduit and configured to (capable of) receive paint from the conduit, the nozzle having an outlet (of 14) configured to (capable of) dispense the paint, the nozzle including a first electrode (30 of A) connected to the power source; a second electrode (34 of C) connected to the power source; a first magnet (18 of B) disposed (radially) between the first and second electrodes when viewed in a direction parallel to a longitudinal (vertical) axis of the nozzle (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); and a second magnet (18 of D) disposed between the first and second electrodes when viewed in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the nozzle, the first and second electrodes and the first and second magnets defining a passage (10 and 14. Fig. 2) through which the paint is configured to (capable of) flow. With respect to claim 15, Rasa discloses the voltage-assisted painting system according to claim 13, wherein a transducer (in the detection unit described in detail in EP 2547527, which is herein incorporated by reference) is disposed adjacent the nozzle, the transducer being configured to (capable of) emit an acoustic wave to the passage ([0012]). With respect to claim 16, Rasa discloses the voltage-assisted painting system according to claim 13,wherein each of the first and second magnets (both sides of 18 in B and D) extends substantially longitudinally from a nozzle inlet (cylindrical area upstream of 14) to a nozzle outlet (14). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a spraying nozzle: Genovese, Rasa ‘028, Indorsky et al., Byun, Rasa ‘134 and Rasa ‘888. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. 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. /CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 27, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678817
CLEANING DEVICE FOR CLEANING A NOZZLE APPLICATOR AND CORRESPONDING CLEANING METHOD
4y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678812
TRIGGER SPRAYER
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673336
TRIGGER-TYPE LIQUID SPRAYER
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667741
FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT WITH FIRE NOZZLE
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667639
FRAGRANCE GENERATOR FOR VEHICLE
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+53.0%)
3y 5m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month