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 .
Status of claims
Currently claims 1-10 are pending.
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: an operation manipulation unit in claim 8.
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, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertilsson (U.S. 3,938,740).
With respect to claim 1, Bertilsson discloses an electrostatic spraying device (title), comprising
a spray unit (figure 1) that sprays a liquid (abstract), wherein the spray unit includes comprises:
a nozzle (17/18) for spraying the liquid (abstract);
a flow path (figures 1 and 2, brining paint from 35 to 37 to the spray gun) for distributing the liquid to a spray hole (25) provided at a nozzle tip portion (tip of 17); and
a shut-off pin (32) configured to advance and retract in the flow path and configured to seal the spray hole (as shown in figure 2) where 33 of 32 abuts that off 26, and wherein the shut-off pin has a tip portion (33) that is unexposed from the spray hole in a state where the spray hole is sealed (as the end of 33 is within that of 25/26, such that it is not exposed past 25).
With respect to claim 3, Bertilsson discloses the nozzle tip portion (that having 25/26) has a part having an inner diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the shut-off pin (as shown in figure 3, where 34 and 33 show a diameter larger than that of 25), and
the shut-off pin is configured to seal the spray hole by being locked to an inner surface of the nozzle tip portion (as shown in figure 3).
With respect to claim 5, Bertilsson discloses a tip surface of the shut-off pin has a flat or obtuse angle shape (figure 3 discloses a flat tip).
With respect to claim 6, Bertilsson discloses an electrode (58) disposed along an outer periphery of the shut-off pin in the nozzle (see figure 3), wherein the electrode is fixed in the nozzle (3 being fixed to that of 17/18, see figure 4).
With respect to claim 7, Bertilsson discloses the spray unit has a through hole (the through hole within 13, see figure 2 that 32 goes through) through which the shut-off pin is insertable on a rear side in a liquid spraying direction with respect to the nozzle (as shown in figures 1 and 2, as 32 extends through the housing and out the back).
With respect to claim 8, Bertilsson discloses an operation manipulation unit (46) for controlling spray operation of the liquid (as it controls the movement of the pin 32, see figure 1, as well as operation of the air valve 48),
wherein the shut-off pin moves in conjunction with the operation manipulation unit at a rear with respect to the through hole (as shown in figure 1, where it moves the pin against spring 47).
With respect to claim 9, Bertilsson discloses a cross-sectional surface along an axis of the nozzle, an angle (the angle of 33, being that as its slopped to a centerline of 33, see below annotated figure) formed by a straight line passing through both ends of an inner surface of the nozzle tip portion and a straight line extending along the axis of the nozzle is 1 to 40 degrees (see below annotated figure, as the shown angle is between 1 and 40 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinne (U.S. 2013/0240641).
With respect to claim 1, Kinne discloses an electrostatic spraying device (title), comprising
a spray unit (figure 8) that sprays a liquid (abstract), wherein the spray unit includes comprises:
a nozzle (figure 8, having 52/32/30/28) for spraying the liquid (abstract);
a flow path (figure 8, bring fluid from 16 to the spray gun 10 and to the nozzle) for distributing the liquid to a spray hole (after 220 in figure 6, shown in figure 8 as the spray outlet) provided at a nozzle tip portion (see figure 8); and
a shut-off pin (204) configured to advance and retract in the flow path and configured to seal the spray hole (as shown in figure 6, sealing 220, 220 being the inlet bore of the spray hole, see figure 8, the spray hole being taken as the hole from 220 to outside of the spray gun), and wherein the shut-off pin has a tip portion (210) that is unexposed from the spray hole in a state where the spray hole is sealed (being well within the spray gun).
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Kinne discloses a cartridge (16) having a liquid containing portion that contains the liquid and the spray unit (being the inner wall that contains the liquid to be sprayed); and an electrostatic spraying main body into and from which the liquid containing portion of the cartridge is insertable and removable (as sown in figure 8, as the spraying main body of 10 receives 1 within 36 and it is both insertable and removable).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertilsson.
With respect to claim 4, Bertilsson discloses the nozzle and the shut-off pin are constituted of an insulating material (abstract discloses the body being made of an insulating plastic material and column 2 rows 50-55 discloses the rod (pin) is made of an insulating plastic material. Bertilsson fails to specifically disclose the rod (pin) and nozzle body being made from an insulating resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an insulating resin for the shut-off pin and body of Bertilsson, since also it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. As Bertilsson discloses using the insulating resin for one insulating plastic material it would have been obvious to use it as the pin (rod) as well. Bertilsson discloses the use of an insulating material, and utilizing a known resin material with insulating properties would have been obvious (as many resin materials are known to be plastics which would have been utilized in Bertilsson).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights