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 Invention Group I and Species A in the reply filed on May 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 21, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on August 9, 2024 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0048], on line 10, “Outlet 74” should be changed to --Outlet 72--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, on line 5, --is -- should be inserted between “wall ” (first occurrence) and “elongated”.
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.
Claims 5-8 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 5, on line 3, the recitation, “the first airflow” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, on lines 3-4, the recitation, “the second airflow” lacks clear antecedent basis.
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 1-11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above-listed claims of the aforementioned patent essentially include all of the recited limitations of the above-listed “showerhead” claims of the instant application, as follows:
As to claim 1, see patented claims 1, 2 and 3, and/or claims 8, 9 and 10.
As to claim 2, see patented claim 4, and/or claim 12.
As to claim 3, see patented claim 5, and/or claim 13.
As to claim 4, see patented claims 4 and 5, and/or claims 12 and 13.
As to claim 5, see patented claim 1, and/or claim 8.
As to claim 6, see patented claim 14.
As to claim 7, see patented claim 1, and/or claim 8.
As to claim 8, see patented claim 1, and/or claim 8; and while the patented claims do not expressly recite of imply that the diameter of the second source air passage is necessarily smaller than a diameter of the second feed passage, the determination for optimal air passage diameters would be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art using routine experimentation and engineering expedience, so as to yield predictable results.
As to claim 9, see patented claim 7, and/or claim 15.
As to claim 10, see patented claim 11.
As to claim 11, see patented claim 11; and while the patented claims do not expressly recite of imply that the first width (of the mix chamber) is necessarily greater than the second width (of the mix chamber), the determination for the comparative width differences, particularly in light of patented claim 11 expressly stating that “the first width varies from the second width”, would be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art using routine experimentation and engineering expedience, so as to yield predictable results.
As to claim 15, see patented claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazda Motor Corp. (hereinafter referred to as “Mazda”), JPH07148447 A (Foreign Document Citation No. 1, as cited on the IDS filed August 9, 2024.
As to claim 1, Mazda (see Figs. 14 and 15) shows a shaping air ring (34) for a rotary bell atomizer spray device (12), the shaping air ring comprising: an end face (downstream-most end surface of “34”); a plurality of recesses (regions denoted by “52A” and “52B” are recessed into the end face of “34”) extending into the end face; a plurality of nozzles (at “52A” and “52B”) disposed in the shaping air ring, wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles comprises: a mix chamber (immediately downstream from the locations where each air passage, inclusive of “56”, “58” and/or “60”, terminates; see Fig. 14) having a first inlet (location where a chosen one of the air passages, such as “58”, terminates), a second inlet (location where any one of the air passages discussed above, and not associated with or applied to the “first inlet”, terminates), and an outlet (any chosen location immediately downstream from the location applied to the “mix chamber”); a first source air passage (the chosen air passage which leads to the “first inlet”, such as “58”, as applied above) formed in the shaping air ring, wherein the first source air passage extends to the first inlet; and a second source air passage (the chosen air passage leading to the “second inlet”, as applied above) formed in the shaping air ring, wherein the second source air passage extends to the second inlet; wherein each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is disposed in a recess of the plurality of recesses such that the outlet of the mix chamber of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is disposed within the shaping air ring and spaced from the end face (when the location applied to the “outlet” of claim 1 is at least immediately upstream from the end face; see Fig. 14).
As to claim 2, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and wherein the shaping air ring is disposed about an axis (coincident with the arrow shown at the top, central region in Fig. 14) and wherein the first source air passage extends substantially parallel to the axis (at least a portion of all three air passages “56”, “58” and “60” extends parallel to the axis, as shown in Fig. 14).
As to claim 3, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 2, and wherein the second source air passage is circumferentially angled relative to the axis (either of air passages “56” and “60” includes at least a portion which is angled in this manner; see Fig. 14).
As to claim 4, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and wherein the first source air passage extends parallel to an axis about which the shaping air ring extends (at least a portion of all three air passages “56”, “58” and “60” extends parallel to the axis), and the second source air passage is disposed transverse to the first source air passage (as per paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification, the term “transverse” is to be broadly interpreted as being “angled”; thus it can be seen that, for example, the portion of air passages “56” or “60”, applied to the “second source air passage”, is angled/transverse to the other of the portion of air passages “56” or “60”, or is angled/transverse to air passage “58”, when applied to the “first source air passage).
As to claim 5, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and further comprising: a first feed passage (upstream air feed passage connected to whichever air passage is applied to the “first source air passage”, as discussed above) fluidly connected to the first source air passage and open on the shaping air ring (such as at the outer, lateral surface of “34”; see Fig. 14), the first feed passage configured to provide a first airflow to the first source air passage.
As to claim 6, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 5, and wherein a diameter of the first source air passage is smaller than a diameter of the first feed passage (as shown in Fig. 14, diameters of each can be chosen to meet this limitation).
As to claim 7, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 5, and further comprising: a second feed passage (upstream air feed passage connected to whichever air passage is applied to the “second source air passage”, as discussed above) fluidly connected to the second source air passage, the second feed passage open on the shaping ring (such as at the outer, lateral surface of “34”; see Fig. 14, for example, on the opposite side from the outer, lateral surface of “34” discussed above with respect to claim 5) and configured to provide a second airflow to the second source air passage.
As to claim 8, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 7, and wherein a diameter of the second source air passage is smaller than a diameter of the second feed passage (as shown in Fig. 14, diameters of each can be chosen to meet this limitation).
As to claim 9, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and wherein the second source air passage is angled relative to the first source air passage at an angle between 40o to 70o, inclusive (the included angle between the lower portions of passages “56” and “58”, or the included angle between the lower portions of passages “60” and “58”, or the included angle between the lower portions of passages “60” and “56”, would fall within this range, as shown in Fig. 14).
As to claim 10, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and wherein the mix chamber has a first width at an upstream end of the mix chamber and a second width at a downstream end of the mix chamber, and wherein the first width varies from the second width (the entire mix chamber, as applied to claim 1, has a varying width; see Fig. 14).
As to claim 11, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 10, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width (the width of the mix chamber, as applied to claim 1, varies in a manner whereby it narrows towards the downstream portion thereof, as shown in Fig. 14).
As to claim 12, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 1, and wherein a first recess of the plurality of recesses includes: a first wall on a first side of the first recess (for example, the outer wall defining “52A”, as shown in Fig. 15); a second wall on a second side of the first recess (for example, either the inner wall defining “52A” in Fig. 15, or the comparatively short wall which spans between the outer and inner walls discussed above); wherein the first wall is elongated relative to the second wall (of the three walls defining “52A” above, the first wall is the most elongated, as shown in Fig. 15).
As to claim 13, Mazda shows the shaping air ring of claim 12, and wherein the first wall is curved (the wall applied to the “first wall” recited in claim 12 is shown to be curved in Fig. 15).
As to claim 14, Mazda shows the shaping ring of claim 12, and wherein the outlet of the mix chamber is disposed at an intersection between the first wall and the second wall (as discussed above with respect to claim 12, the outlet of the mix chamber is disposed at the wall intersections, as applied above).
As to claim 15, Mazda shows a rotary atomizer spray device (12) for coating a surface, the device comprising: an atomizing bell cup (16) disposed to rotate on an axis of rotation and configured to deliver a coating material; and the shaping air ring (34) of claim 1 disposed about the atomizing bell cup.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Yamada and Matsumoto, and US Patent Application Publications to Seiz et al. and Yamada, are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights