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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Examiner notes that the document “European Patent and Trademark Office – Office Action for App no. 23 709 167.3” does not include an English translation. As such, it cannot be considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (apparatus claims) and Species C (Fig 3) in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 41-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (method claims), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 29-30, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species F (Fig 9, which discloses the bistable spring element 46), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 36 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B (Fig 2, which discloses the gas heater downstream of control valve 9), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species C in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden of search between the subject matter of Group I and II. This is not found persuasive because this application is a 371 PCT application. As such, the restriction is based on lack of unity of invention between the groups; wherein Examiner notes that burden of search is not a consideration under lack of unity of invention. In the restriction dated 05/08/2026 examiner showed that the common features between the Groups do not make a contribution over the prior art, as taught by Kobayashi (U.S. 9,376,915). Examiner also points to prior art rejections, below, for further proof of lack of lack of unity of invention. For this reason there is lack of inventive unity between the Groups. Applicant did not provide any arguments relating restriction under to lack of unity of invention. As such, this restriction is deemed proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-28, 31-35 and 37-40 are examiner hereafter.
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 19-28, 31-35 and 37-40 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.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitation "the turbine shafts" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret this as: the turbine blades.
Claim 19 discloses: “in particular compressed air”. Here, “in particular” is a relative term and is also alternate language. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if compressed air is positively recited in the claim or not. Examiner will treat this as alternate language, i.e. the compressed air is optional.
Claims 20-28, 31-35 and 37-40 are indefinite for depending on claim 19.
Claim 24 ends with “and.” This is considered incomplete and renders the claim indefinite because there appears to be a missing limitation.
Claim 31 discloses: “further comprising a gas heater for heating the drive gas and/or the brake gas upstream of the drive nozzles and/or upstream of the brake nozzle.” The use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if all the limitations are required or if the limitations are optional. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret the claimed limitations as optional, i.e. “or” takes precedence.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the brake nozzle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation of “several drive gas supply lines”. The term “several” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. As such, it is not clear how many “several” encompasses. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret “several” as a plurality. Furthermore, the gas supply lines appear to not have been properly introduced; as such, this is considered lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the at least one gas control valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 discloses: “the load point determining the speed and/or torque of the turbine drive”. The use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if all the limitations are required or if the limitations are optional. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret the claimed limitations as optional, i.e. “or” takes precedence. Moreover, “the drive gas control valves”, “the speed” and “the torque” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 38 discloses: “wherein the turbine controller opens a different number of the drive gas control valves as a function of the load point and closes the remaining drive gas control valves”. This claim is indefinite for a few reasons. First, “a different number of drive gas control valves” is not well defined; as it is unclear what “a different number” is compared in relation to. Second, there is lack on antecedent basis for “the gas control valves”. Third, claim 38 depends on claim 37 and 19, wherein these claims only disclose a first control valve and a second control valve; as such, there are only two valves claimed, which renders the claim indefinite because it is claiming a plurality of valves open, while another plurality of valves are closed.
Claim 39 recites the limitations "the first gas control valve", "the second gas control valve", and "the third gas control valve". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the individual gas flows" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 19-28, 31-35 and 37-40 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 26 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nolte et al (U.S. 2015/0258270).
Regarding claim 19, Nolte teaches a turbine drive (defined at least by plate 6 and turbine wheel 3) for a rotary atomizer (1), comprising
a) a rotatable turbine wheel (3) with a plurality of turbine blades (4),
b) a first drive nozzle (11) for delivering a drive gas (as disclosed in Par 0019), in particular compressed air (as best understood, this is not positively claimed), to the turbine blades of the turbine wheel to drive the turbine wheel (nozzle 11 sends gas that impacts the blades 4 in order to turn the turbine wheel, as disclosed in Par 0019),
c) a first drive gas supply (first gas supply that sends gas to inlet 14, disclosed in Par 0030) for supplying the drive gas to the first drive nozzle (inlet 14 sends gas to first drive nozzle 11, as seen in Fig 3), and
d) a second drive nozzle (10) for delivering the drive gas to the turbine blades of the turbine wheel to drive the turbine wheel (nozzle 10 sends gas that impacts the blades 4 in order to turn the turbine wheel, as disclosed in Par 0019),
e) a second drive gas supply (second gas supply that sends gas to inlet 13, disclosed in Par 0030) for supplying the drive gas to the second drive nozzle (inlet 13 sends gas to the second drive nozzle 10, as seen in Fig 3), the second drive gas supply being separate from the first drive gas supply, so that the second drive nozzle can be supplied with the drive gas independently of the first drive nozzle (as disclosed in Par 0030: the individual inlets 13 and 14 of the intermediate chamber 12 connected individually with separate supply lines for the driving gas, may present an operative communication with a separate control and regulation of the supply of the driving gas for the two inlets 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 20, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19, further comprising a) a third drive nozzle (brake nozzle 16) for delivering the drive gas to the turbine blades of the turbine wheel to drive the turbine wheel (as disclosed in Par 0020), and b) a third drive gas supply for supplying the drive gas to the third drive nozzle, the third drive gas supply being separate from the first drive gas supply and from the second drive gas supply (as disclosed in claim 66 of Nolte, the brake nozzle is separately supplied with fluid, i.e. gas, from the first and second gas supplies), so that the third drive nozzle can be supplied with the drive gas independently of the first drive nozzle and independently of the second drive nozzle (Par 0020 discloses the brake nozzle 16 used to brake the rotational movement of the turbine by supplying gas in the opposite direction as the first and second drive nozzles; therefore it is supplied independently of the first and second nozzles, or else the brake nozzle 16 would not achieve its intended function of braking the rotational motion of the turbine wheel).
Regarding claim 21, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19, wherein the first drive nozzle and the second drive nozzle are different (as seen in Fig 3, the first drive nozzle 11 and the second drive nozzle 10 are of different shapes).
Regarding claim 22, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 21, wherein first drive nozzle and the second drive nozzle are different with respect to their nozzle shape (as seen in Fig 3, the first drive nozzle 11 and the second drive nozzle 10 are of different shapes) and/or with respect to their nozzle cross-section (“or” is alternate language, as such, this feature is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 24, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19, further comprising at least one brake nozzle (16) for delivering a brake gas to the turbine blades of the turbine wheel in order to brake the turbine wheel (as disclosed in Par 0020), the brake nozzle being oriented in the opposite direction to the at least one drive nozzle (as disclosed in Par 0020).
Regarding claim 26, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 24, further comprising a brake gas supply for supplying the brake gas (as disclosed in claim 66 of Nolte, the brake nozzle is separately supplied with fluid, i.e. gas, from the first and second gas supplies).
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.
Claim 23 is, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte et al (U.S. 2015/0258270).
Regarding claim 23, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 20, wherein the first drive nozzle and the second drive nozzle have a convergent-divergent nozzle cross-section (Par 0020 discloses first and second drive nozzles 11 and 10 being Lavalle nozzles, wherein Lavalle nozzles have, by definition, a convergent cross-section and a divergent cross-section). However, Nolte does not teach the third drive nozzle (16) having a convergent-divergent nozzle cross-section.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to also make the third nozzle (brake nozzle 16) as a Lavalle nozzle since these nozzles are favorable for flow technology (as disclosed in Par 0024 of Nolte).
Claims 25 and 40 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte et al (U.S. 2015/0258270) in view of Takeuchi et al (U.S. 4,700,896).
Regarding claim 25, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 24. However, Nolte does not teach the device further comprising a brake gas control valve for controlling the brake gas flow to the brake nozzle.
Takeuchi teaches a rotary sprayer that comprises a brake gas control valve (66) for controlling brake gas flow to brake nozzle (52) (as disclosed in col 6, line 65 to col 7, line 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to incorporate the teachings of Takeuchi to provide a brake gas control valve controlled by a drive controller in order to automatically stop spinning of the turbine when a target operation is done (as disclosed in col 6, line 53 to col 7, line 16).
Regarding claim 40, as best understood, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19. However, Nolte does not teach the device further comprising a) a plurality of drive gas shut-off valves for separately releasing or blocking the individual drive gas flows independently of one another, and b) a common drive gas proportional valve for adjusting the sum of the individual drive gas flows, wherein the drive gas proportional valve is arranged upstream of the drive gas shut-off valves.
Takeuchi teaches a rotary sprayer that comprises a plurality of drive gas shut-off valves (defined by valves 62, 63, and 66) for separately releasing or blocking individual drive gas flows independently of one another (each of the valves 62, 63 and 66 release or block flow of fluid to gas supply channels 57, 58, and 59, respectively, see Fig 1), and a common drive gas proportional valve (valve 67) for adjusting the sum of the individual drive gas flows (valve 67 is a valve that is directly downstream of regulator 68, which is configured to maintain pressure at a predetermined value -see col 4, line 51; as such, valve 67 dictates the total sum of flow sent to the indivual valves and thereafter their individual drive gas flows), wherein the drive gas proportional valve is arranged upstream of the drive gas shut-off valves (as seen in Fig 1, the proportional valve 67 is upstream of shut-off valves 62, 62 and 66).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to incorporate the teachings of Takeuchi to provide a proportional valve and shut-off valves in order to maintain constant gas pressure throughout the system (as disclosed in col 4, lines 51-53 of Takeuchi), which would ensure the whole system operates at desired pressure and flow.
Claims 27, 28, 31-35 and 37-39 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte et al (U.S. 2015/0258270) in view of Krumma et al (U.S. 2004/0081769).
Regarding claim 27, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 20. However, Nolte does not teach the device further comprising a) a first drive gas control valve for controlling the drive gas flow through the first drive gas supply to the first drive nozzle, and b) a second drive gas control valve for controlling the drive gas flow through the second drive gas supply to the second drive nozzle, and c) a third drive gas control valve for controlling the drive gas flow through the third drive gas supply to the third drive nozzle.
Krumma teaches a rotary nozzle that comprises a) a first drive gas control valve (defined by part of valve arrangement 110 that sends fluid to channel 108) for controlling the drive gas flow through a first drive gas supply to a turbine wheel (channel 108 sends driving air to turbine wheel 104, as disclosed in Par 0028), and b) a second drive gas control valve (defined by second part of valve arrangement 110 that sends fluid to channel 111) for controlling the drive gas flow through the second drive gas supply to the turbine wheel (channel 111 sends driving air to turbine wheel 104, as disclosed in Par 0032), and c) a third drive gas control valve (VB) for controlling the drive gas flow through a third drive gas supply to the turbine wheel (valve VB controls flow to line LB which sends braking air to the turbine wheel 104, as disclosed in Par 0028 and seen in Fig 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to incorporate the teachings of Krumma to provide a control valve for each of the three nozzles in order to accurately regulate RPM of the turbine to a desired value (as disclosed in Par 0028 and 0033 of Krumma).
Regarding claim 28, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 27, wherein the third drive gas control valve being arranged outside the rotary atomizer (as seen in Fig 2 of Krumma, the third gas control valve VB is located outside of the atomizer housing 101). However, Nolte and Krumma do not teach the first drive gas control valve is arranged outside the rotary atomizer and the second drive gas control valve is arranged outside the rotary atomizer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange first and second control valves such that they are outside the atomizer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Japikse, where the court found that rearrangement of parts is unpatentable if the modification would not have modified the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C). In the present case, rearranging the placement of the valves such that they are outside of the atomizer would not change how the device operates. Furthermore, Applicant fails to teach any criticality to having the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19. However, Nolte does not teach the device further comprising a gas heater for heating the drive gas and/or the brake gas upstream of the drive nozzles and/or upstream of the brake nozzle.
Krumma teaches a rotary nozzle that comprises a heater (115) for heating the drive gas (heater 115 heats the drive gas of the turbine, as disclosed in Par 0006).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to incorporate the teachings of Krumma to provide a gas heater in order to reduce condensation on the rotary nozzle, which can be detrimental (as disclosed in Par 0003 of Krumma).
Regarding claim 32, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 31, wherein the gas heater is arranged outside the rotary atomizer (heater 115 is arranged outside of the atomizer housing 101, as seen in Fig 2 of Krumma).
Regarding claim 33, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 31, wherein the gas heater only heats the drive gas in one of the drive gas supplies, while the drive gas in the other drive gas supply or supplies is not heated by the gas heater (heater 115 only heats gas supplies corresponding to channels 108 and 111, but does not heat the gas of brake line LB, see Fig 2 of Krumma; see also claim 2 of Krumma which discloses that the heater only heats air A, whereby air B is the only one going into the brake line LB).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 31, wherein the gas heater heats the drive gas in several drive gas supply lines (the heater 115 heats gas at valve arrangement 110, which sends to both drive gas supply lines 108 and 111).
Regarding claim 35, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 31, wherein the gas heater is arranged upstream of the at least one drive gas control valve (the heater 115 is upstream of control valve arrangement 110, see Fig 2 of Krumma).
Regarding claim 37, as best understood, Nolte teaches the turbine drive according to claim 19. However, Nolte does not teach the device wherein a) the turbine drive has a turbine controller, b) the turbine controller receives a load point on the input side, the load point determining the speed and/or the torque of the turbine drive, and c) the turbine controller controls the drive gas control valves on the output side as a function of the load point.
Krumma teaches a rotary nozzle that comprises a turbine controller (RPM regulator, disclosed in Par 0028), the turbine controller receives a load point on the input side (Par 0028 discloses a desired RPM value, i.e. an input load point), the load point determining the speed and/or the torque of the turbine drive (load point determines RPM of the turbine, i.e. speed), and the turbine controller controls the drive gas control valves on the output side as a function of the load point (Par 0028 discloses that if the regulator finds deviations between input and detected values, the valves are actuated via an actuator; as such, the regulator controls the valves as a function of the input load point, as claimed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nolte to incorporate the teachings of Krumma to provide a turbine controller such that automatic changes to turbine speed are applied based on comparisons between input values and detected values (as disclosed in Par 0028 of Krumma). This would ensure the turbine is operating at optimal speed.
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 37, wherein the turbine controller opens a different number of the drive gas control valves as a function of the load point and closes the remaining drive gas control valves (as disclosed in Pars 0029, 0031 and 0032 of Krumma, the controller can keep the valve in charge of channel 111 closed while keeping the valve in charge of channel 108 open in instances of low output, wherein in this instance the brake valve VB is also closed; in instances when increased output is demanded, the controller opens the valves for both channels 108 and 111 to increase drive gas output, while keeping the brake valve VB closed. Thus, the controller of Krumma is configured in a way that reads on claim language).
Regarding claim 39, as best understood, Nolte and Krumma teach the turbine drive according to claim 37, wherein the turbine controller sets one of (Examiner notes that only of the states is required in order to read on claim language) the following operating states as a function of the load point: a) only the first drive gas control valve is open, so that only the first drive nozzle discharges the drive gas (as disclosed in Pars 0029, 0031 and 0032 of Krumma, the controller can keep the valve in charge of channel 108, i.e. first valve, open in instances of low output, whiles keeping the valve in charge of channel 111, i.e. second valve, closed), b) only the second drive gas control valve is open, so that only the second drive nozzle emits the drive gas, c) only the third drive gas control valve is open, so that only the third drive nozzle emits the drive gas, d) only the first drive gas control valve and the second drive gas control valve are open, so that only the first drive nozzle and the second drive nozzle emit the drive gas, e) only the first drive gas control valve and the third drive gas control valve are open, so that only the first drive nozzle and the third drive nozzle emit the drive gas, f) only the second drive gas control valve and the third drive gas control valve are open, so that only the second drive nozzle and the third drive nozzle emit the drive gas, g) all drive gas control valves are open so that all drive nozzles release the drive gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights