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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on June 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Two pages of drawings were received on June 10, 2026. The drawings are NOT acceptable because the newly submitted drawings are exactly the same as the original drawings. The Applicant is advised to supply both “Clean” and “Marked-up” versions of the drawings for clarity of the prosecution record. The Applicant claims that a certified copy of the priority document via Federal Express is being sent to the USPTO Customer Service Window. However, as of June 27, 2026, no such documents are in file.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 8/14/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2308701 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the first strength and the second strength as recited in claim 6; and
the air supply skirt is screwed onto the main body as recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“hooking device” and “clamping mechanism” in claim 6 where “device” and “mechanism” are the placeholder and “hooking” and “clamping” are 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 § 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) 1-3, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perinet et al (US 20210394206. Perinet hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Perinet discloses a rotary atomizer (2. Figs. 1-7) for coating products, the rotary atomizer comprising:
a main body (8) that comprises a rotor (42) having a rotation axis (X8);
an air supply skirt (sleeve with 82 and ring with 67) directly mounted on the main body; and
a bowl (6) mounted on (over) the air supply skirt, wherein the bowl is rotated by the rotor about the rotation axis;
wherein: the bowl comprises a first magnetic element (67) and the air supply skirt comprises a second magnetic element (47), and the first and second magnetic elements are apt to (capable of) exert an at least partially axial force with respect to the rotation axis, the force inducing a coupling in rotation of the bowl with the rotor ([0050]); and
the air supply skirt directs jets of air toward a cloud of coating product leaving an edge of the bowl to shape and/or direct the cloud of coating product toward an object to be coated ([0045] and [0051]. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 2, Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the second magnetic element is mounted on, or formed by, an internal collar flange of the air supply skirt, bearing on a front (right) face of the main body (Fig. 1. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 3, Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic element is a ferromagnetic part of the bowl and the second magnetic element is at least one permanent magnet ([0050]).
With respect to claim 9, Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the air supply skirt is clamped to the main body by a magnetic force exerted between a part of the main body and a part of the air supply skirt (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Perinet discloses a method of assembling and/or disassembling the atomizer of claim 1 (2. Figs. 1-7), wherein, when assembling the atomizer:
in a first assembly step, the air supply skirt and the bowl are assembled and held together by a magnetic force between the first and second magnetic elements ([0050]); and
in a second assembly step, a subassembly formed by the air supply skirt and the bowl is directly mounted in one operation onto the main body; and wherein, when disassembling the atomizer:
in a first disassembly step, the subassembly formed by the air supply skirt and the bowl is separated from the main body in one operation; and
in a second disassembly step, the air supply skirt and the bowl are separated from each other, against the magnetic force between the first and second magnetic elements (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perinet.
Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic element is a ferromagnetic part of the bowl and the second magnetic element is at least one permanent magnet ([0050]). Perinet fails to disclose wherein the first magnetic element is at least one permanent magnet and the second magnetic element is a ferromagnetic part of the air supply skirt.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the first magnetic element is at least one permanent magnet and the second magnetic element is a ferromagnetic part of the air supply skirt. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
With respect to claim 8, Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1 except for wherein the air supply skirt is screwed onto the main body.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the air supply skirt and the main body with screw because these types of connections are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the screw connection because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the screw connection because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent connection method from making a part into two connected parts.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perinet in view of Thome et al (US7452421. Thome hereinafter).
With respect to claim 5, Perinet discloses the atomizer according to claim 1, however, Perinet fails to disclose the atomizer further comprising a magnetic-pneumatic or magneto-hydraulic system which includes: a magnetic device for hooking the air supply skirt onto the main body; and a pneumatic or hydraulic mechanism for locking and clamping the air supply skirt on the main body.
However, Thome teaches a rotary atomizer (Figs. 1-6) for coating products comprising: a main body (15); and a bowl (3) which is rotated by a rotating member (11) about a rotation (longitudinal) axis defined by the main body, the bowl being equipped with a first means of magnetic coupling (4) apt to (capable of) cooperate with a second matching means of magnetic coupling (52-54) fastened to a non-rotating part (5, 15) of the rotary atomizer of coating products, the first and second means of magnetic coupling being apt to (capable of) exert an at least partially axial force with respect to the axis of rotation of the bowl, the force inducing the coupling in rotation of the bowl with the rotating member, wherein the second means of magnetic coupling are supported by an (inner) air supply skirt (38a and right surface of 5 in Fig. 2 that defined air gap e) directly mounted on the main body. Thome further teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a magnetic-pneumatic (air and/or magnetic bearing turbine. Col. 1, lines 25-26) or magneto-hydraulic system which includes: a magnetic device (4, 5 and 52) for (capable of) hooking (connecting) the air supply skirt onto the main body; and a pneumatic or hydraulic mechanism (volumes filled with air. Col. 5, lines 34-38) for (capable of) locking and clamping the air supply skirt on the main body (via the magnetic connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the magnetic device and hydraulic mechanism, as taught by Thome, to Perinet’s atomizer, in order to lock and clamp the air supply skirt on the main body (Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 34-38).
With respect to claim 6, Perinet’s atomizer modified by Thome’s magnetic device and hydraulic mechanism, Thome further teaches the atomizer according to claim 5, wherein: the magnetic hooking device is configured to (capable of) exert, between the air supply skirt and the main body, an axial magnetic force, parallel to a longitudinal axis of the atomizer, with a first strength (Fig. 2. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); and the pneumatic or hydraulic clamping mechanism is configured to (capable of) exert between the air supply skirt and the main body an axial mechanical force, parallel to the longitudinal axis of the atomizer, with a second strength (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention); and the second strength is strictly greater than the first strength (Second strength is power by adjustable pneumatic air system, therefore, it can be increase to overcome the fixed magnetic force).
Alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second strength strictly greater than the first strength, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7, Perinet’s atomizer modified by Thome’s magnetic device and hydraulic mechanism, Thome further teaches the atomizer according to claim 6, further comprising seals (glue or rings 53 and 54 or volumes filled with air. Col. 5, lines 34-38) arranged between the air supply skirt and the main body, wherein the seals are compressed by the mechanical force exerted by the pneumatic or hydraulic clamping mechanism and isolate conduits (air passages of Thome) for the circulation of shaping air, provided in the main body and in a body (of 5 and 15) of the air supply skirt, from the outside of the atomizer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights