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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on June 25, 2026. Claims 1-32, 45, and 47 have been canceled. Claims 33, 36, 39, 46, 48-51, 55-57, and 61 have been amended. Claims 62-63 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 33 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.
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 new limitation “the piezo actuator device is connected to an application agent supply and an application agent return for application agent circulation” 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 Objections
Claims 46, 48, and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 46, 48, and 49 are dependent claims on claim 62. It is suggested to replace the claims with renumbering the claims to 64, 65, and 66. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 55 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 55 and 61 are dependent claims on claim 63. It is suggested to replace the claims with renumbering the claims to 67 and 68. Appropriate correction is required.
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 33, 34, 35, 37-41, 50, 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner (DE 202016008512 U1) in view of Fritz et al. (US 2020/0298254 A1).
With regard to claim 33, Meissner discloses a piezo actuator device (14) attachable to a manipulator to enable a swirl application on a component, comprising: - a nozzle (26) for dispensing an application agent onto the component, - a hollow rod, and - at least two piezo actuators (27a/27b/27c) configured to deflect the rod in different directions transversely to its longitudinal axis, whereby the nozzle is movable along at least one movement path (“This can preferably be done so that the vibration generating device 27a a vibration in 1 generated from left to right (back and forth) and the vibration generating equipment 27b a vibration in another direction (especially in the plane of the paper). Thereby, by simultaneously using the vibration generating means 27a and 27b Any swinging (for example linear or circular or in still another form) can be realized”).
Meissner does not disclose that the piezo actuator device is connected to an application agent supply and an application agent return for application agent circulation.
Fritz teaches a coating device that is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention that comprising a piezo actuator device is connected to an application agent supply and an application agent return for application agent circulation (Par. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meissner, by incorporating the application agent supply and the application agent return for application agent circulation as taught by Fritz, for the benefit of providing the device with an integrated material circulation (Par. [0090]).
With regard to claim 34, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the piezo actuators are configured to variably deflect the rod in different directions transversely to its longitudinal axis, whereby the nozzle is movable along different movement paths (“This can preferably be done so that the vibration generating device 27a a vibration in 1 generated from left to right (back and forth) and the vibration generating equipment 27b a vibration in another direction (especially in the plane of the paper). Thereby, by simultaneously using the vibration generating means 27a and 27b Any swinging (for example linear or circular or in still another form) can be realized”).
With regard to claim 35, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the at least one movement path comprise at least one substantially circular movement path, at least one substantially elliptical movement path and/or at least one movement path deviating from a circular movement path (“This can preferably be done so that the vibration generating device 27a a vibration in 1 generated from left to right (back and forth) and the vibration generating equipment 27b a vibration in another direction (especially in the plane of the paper). Thereby, by simultaneously using the vibration generating means 27a and 27b Any swinging (for example linear or circular or in still another form) can be realized”).
With regard to claim 37, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the rod (31) is drivable in a bearing area transversely relative to its longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 38, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 37 above. Meissner further discloses that the bearing area is positioned between the bearing device and the nozzle (connecting sections between 27 and 31 as seen in Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 39, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. However, they do not disclose that the piezo actuators are configured - to actuate the rod with a variable, actuating frequency between 0 Hz to at least 300 Hz, to at least 350 Hz or to at least 400 Hz, and - to move the nozzle by means of the rod on at least one movement path, which corresponds to a rotational speed of at least 10,000, at least 15,000 or at least 20,000 revolutions per minute.
It is noted by the Examiner that the specification is devoid to provide any evidence indicating such actuating frequency and rotational speed on the nozzle is critical. On the other hand, the specification, page 5 states “preferably variable, actuation frequency between, for example, 0 Hz to at least 300 Hz, to at least 350 Hz, to at least 400 Hz, to at least 450 Hz, to at least 550 Hz, to at least 650 Hz or to at least 700 Hz. The piezo actuator apparatuses can, e. g., also be configured to move the nozzle by means of the rod on at least one movement path, preferably a circular path, which corresponds to a rotational speed of, for example, at least 10,000, at least 15,000 or at least 20,000 revolutions per minute.” Hence, the claiming frequency and rotational speed are a matter of routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify actuating frequency and rotational speed of the nozzle of Meissner to exhibit the actuating frequency between 0 Hz to at least 300 Hz, to at least 350 Hz or to at least 400 Hz, and to move the nozzle by means of the rod on at least one movement path, which corresponds to a rotational speed of at least 10,000, at least 15,000 or at least 20,000 revolutions per minute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the actuation frequency and rotational speed of the nozzle which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the desire coating pattern, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 40, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the rod (31) comprises an application agent channel (32) to guide the application agent to the nozzle (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 41, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the application agent channel extends through the bearing device and/or the bearing area and/or comprises an axial inlet opening for the application agent (33).
With regard to claim 50, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the at least two piezo actuators (27a/27b/27c) are aligned non-parallel to each other (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 56, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the at least two piezo actuators are configured to deflect, based on an excitation energy applied to each piezo actuator, the rod to different extends in different directions transversely to its longitudinal axis (“This can preferably be done so that the vibration generating device 27a a vibration in 1 generated from left to right (back and forth) and the vibration generating equipment 27b a vibration in another direction (especially in the plane of the paper). Thereby, by simultaneously using the vibration generating means 27a and 27b Any swinging (for example linear or circular or in still another form) can be realized”).
With regard to claim 57, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that the at least two piezo actuators are configured to exert a respective stroke on the rod, wherein the respective stroke is adjustable depending on an excitation energy for the respective piezo actuator.
With regard to claim 58, the piezo actuator device of Meissner as modified by Fritz discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 33 above. Meissner further discloses that a controller is provided to control an excitation energy to be supplied to the respective piezo actuator device (“a control device for controlling, in particular control, the amplitude and /or frequency of the oscillation of the outlet nozzle may be provided. The control devices mentioned here can be realized by a single control device or various control devices. In any case, this further simplifies the adaptation of the device”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46, 48, 49, 55 and 61-63 allowed.
Claims 36, 42-44, 51-54, 59, and 60 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights