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 .
Priority
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 2308704 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 01/14/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figs. 1-2), encompassed in claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13-15 in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species are variants that relate to the same inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because a search of mutually exclusive features in patentably distinct inventions constitutes a burdensome search and examination (different structures of the mechanical locking weight). Also, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Upon examination of applicant’s disclosure, claims 10 and 11 appears to be drawn to an embodiment having “a means for elastically returning each of said at least one mechanical locking weight toward its unlocked position” and “said elastic return means comprises an elastically deformable ring which surrounds a hub of the spraying member, at the level of said at least one mechanical locking weight along the central axis of the bowl”, which is shown in non-elected embodiment 2 of figures 3-4. No such feature is found in the elected embodiment shown in figs. 1-2. Claims 10-11 are therefore also withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 13-15 are addressed below. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn.
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(s) 1-6, 13-15 is/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 1 defines “a spraying member” having “the spraying member carries at least one mechanical locking weight on a drive shaft of the rotary projector” (emphasis added). Since the rotary projector is not positively recited, it is unclear how to address the scope of this claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites “each mechanical locking weight being movable, radially to the central axis of the bowl and according to a centrifugal direction relative to this axis, between an unlocked position, where it does not oppose mounting of the spraying member on the drive shaft or its dismantling relative to this shaft, and a locked position, where it opposes dismantling of the bowl relative to the drive shaft”.
Firstly, it is unclear which component is referred to via the terms “it” and “its”. Additionally, it is not understood what is mean by “does not oppose mounting of the spraying member”, is this claim language defining structure of a mounting on the drive shaft (not positively recited)?
The remainder of the claims listed in the rejection title is/are rejected for being dependent from or including subject matter of a rejected base claim.
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 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, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nolte (US20100206962).
Regarding claim 1, Nolte discloses a spraying member (fig. 20A) for a rotary projector for a coating product (par. 2 and 92), wherein the spraying member carries at least one mechanical locking weight (500’, 504) on a drive shaft of the rotary projector (see figs. 20C and 20D), each mechanical locking weight being movable, radially to the central axis (axis through center of the member in fig. 20A; similar to axis A-A) of the bowl and according to a centrifugal direction relative to this axis (par. 95: “the tabs 500′ and/or 504 deflect radially inwardly and eventually are allowed to deflect radially outwardly into the cavity 404”), between an unlocked position (when deflect radially inward), where it does not oppose mounting of the spraying member on the drive shaft or its dismantling relative to this shaft (when 500’/504 is/are not extended into cavity 404), and a locked position (when 500’/504 is/are extended into cavity 404; see par. 95), where it opposes dismantling of the bowl relative to the drive shaft (see also par. 96: “the radially extending engagement tabs 504 may be immediately adjacent the surfaces of the cavity, only coming into abutment or engagement with the surfaces of the cavity 404 after the bell shaped plate 281 is rotated and centrifugal force caused by the rotation brings the tabs 504 radially outward and into abutment or engagement with the surfaces of the cavity 404.”, emphasis added).
Regarding claim 3, Nolte discloses the spraying member according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of mechanical locking weights (500’/504) distributed about the central axis (see figs. 20B).
Regarding claim 4, Nolte discloses the spraying member according to claim 3, wherein said mechanical locking weights are distributed about the central axis in a regular pattern (see fig. 20B).
Regarding claim 13, Nolte discloses a coating product rotary projector (fig. 20C) comprising:
a spraying member according to claim 1 (fig. 20A); and
a drive shaft (400; par. 92) for driving in rotation said spraying member about an axis of rotation, wherein each mechanical locking weight of said spraying member is brought into its locked position due to rotation of said spraying member by the drive shaft (bottom half of par. 96 and par. 97).
Regarding claim 14, Nolte discloses the projector according to claim 13, wherein said drive shaft defines a bearing relief (404, 410) on which each of the at least one mechanical locking weight (500’, 504) of said spraying member in the locked position bears (see fig. 20D; par. 97).
Regarding claim 15, Nolte discloses the projector according to claim 14, wherein the bearing relief is an internal shoulder of said drive shaft (see fig. 20D).
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 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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (US20100206962) in view of Merabet (US20040140378).
Regarding claim 2, Nolte discloses the spraying member according to claim 1, but is silent regarding the spraying member is equipped with first magnetic coupling means configured to cooperate with complementary second magnetic coupling means to exert an at least partial axial force relative to a central axis of the bowl (Nolte discloses another coupling/threads for coupling but that is not magnetic coupling; Note: limitation reciting “first magnetic coupling means configured to cooperate…” does not invoke 112f claim interpretation because magnetic coupling convey sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
However, Merabet discloses a comparable coupling in the same location of the threads taught by Nolte, wherein the spraying member has a first magnetic coupling means (ribs 36 made of magnetic material/steel; par. 37) configured to cooperate with complementary second magnetic coupling means (magnets 51; par. 42-43) to exert an at least partial axial force (see fig. 4A: axial force E1) relative to a central axis of the bowl.
Nolte and Merabet show two couplings that resist axial movement between two components in a similar manner; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize one or the other for coupling purposes. The substitution of one known element (threads) as taught by Nolte with another (magnetic coupling means) as taught by Merabet would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the coupling structure would have yielded predictable results, namely, securing the spraying member to the rotor.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (US20100206962) in view of Clarke (US20230151918).
Regarding claim 5, Nolte discloses the spraying member according to claim 1, wherein the spraying member comprises a hub (285), but is silent regarding a weight is received in a housing formed in said hub and opening onto an external radial surface of said hub and wherein, in its unlocked position, the weight is completely enclosed in the housing, and in its locked position, the weight projects from the housing beyond the external radial surface of said hub (500’/504 operate the same way with its unlocked and locked position, but they are elastic tabs and not weight received in a housing).
Clarke discloses a relevant coupling mechanism (figs. 1-5) having a plurality of weights/ balls 36 received in radial positions in a housing 22 of a hub 22/26, opening onto an external radial surface of said hub (external surface of 22) and wherein, in its unlocked position (shown in figs. 2-4), the weight is completely enclosed in the housing (see figs. 2-4), and in its locked position (see fig. 5), the weight projects from the housing beyond the external radial surface of said hub (see figs. 1 and 5).
Given the intention of having locking elements 500’/504 movable into locked position via centrifugal force taught in Nolte, Clarke’s coupling mechanism operates in the same manner of having the locking elements that are weight/balls moving radially outward toward a locked position. Nolte and Clarke demonstrate similar manner of coupling mechanism; therefore, utilizing one or the other of known couplings would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. No inventive effort would have been required. The substitution of one known element (elastic tabs with outward movement for locking) as taught by Nolte with another (weight/balls with outward movement for locking) as taught by Clarke would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of locking/coupling mechanism would have yielded predictable results, namely, securing the components via outward radial force.
Regarding claim 6, Nolte, as modified above, discloses the spraying member according to claim 5, wherein Clarke further discloses a hole (where the balls 36 is placed; see par. 31: “the locking elements comprise a plurality of separate locking balls 36, each captively held in a respective “window” in the lug 22”) through which the housing opens onto the external radial surface of said hub has dimensions preventing the weight from exiting the housing through this hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights