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 with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 9/8/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a thorough search for one species would encompass a search for the other species.
This argument is not found persuasive. A national stage application shall relate to only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement for unity of invention”). Species A and Species B lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the applicator of Claim 15, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art, as noted in the office action mailed 7/7/2026.
Furthermore, the independent and distinct mutually exclusive species have divergent subject matter that require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, and/or employing different search strategies or search queries using different keywords). Additionally, the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species, therefore a search burden exists.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 17, 19, 21-24, and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 15 Line 6, “the distal end of the applicator” should be revised to “a distal end of the applicator” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 15 Line 7, each instance of “the individual nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 15 Line 8, “the associated nozzle holders” should be revised to “the respective nozzle holders” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 17 Line 2, “the associated nozzle holder” should be revised to “the respective nozzle holder” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 19 Lines 5-6, “the flat contact surfaces of the nozzles on the one hand and the nozzle holders on the other hand lie plane-parallel against each other in the mounted state of the nozzles” should be revised to “the flat contact surfaces of the nozzles and the flat contact surfaces of the respective nozzle holders lie plane-parallel against each other in a mounted state” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 21 Lines 1-3, “wherein the screw connections between the nozzles and the associated nozzle holders are each aligned at right angles to contact surfaces of the nozzle on the one hand and of the nozzle holder on the other hand” should be revised to “wherein the screw connections between the nozzles and the respective nozzle holders are each aligned at right angles to a contact surface of the nozzle and a contact surface of the nozzle holder” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 22 Line 3, “the individual nozzle plates” should be revised to “each nozzle plate of the plurality of nozzle plates” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 23 Line 3, “the individual flat jet nozzles” should be revised to “each flat jet nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 24 Line 2, “the distal end of the lance” should be revised to “a distal end of the lance” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 26 Line 2, “the material flow” should be revised to “a material flow” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 26 Line 3, “the individual nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 3, “the individual nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 4, “the associated nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 5, “the associated nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 27 Line 6, “the associated nozzles” should be revised to “each nozzle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
Claim 25 is indefinite because Line 2 and Lines 5-6 each state “less than 200 mm, 150 mm, 100 mm or less than 80 mm”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 25 recites the broad recitation “less than 200 mm”, and the claim also recites “150 mm, 100 mm or less than 80 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination each instance of “less than 200 mm, 150 mm, 100 mm or less than 80 mm” will be interpreted as “less than 200 mm”.
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.
Claims 15, 17-21, 24-25, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2017/0341089 A1 to Kraft et al. (“Kraft”).
As to Claim 15, Kraft discloses an applicator (See Figs. 14-15. The applicator is made up of #10 and #102) for applying an application agent (See Paragraph 0085), comprising:
a mounting flange (See a left end of #102 in Annotated Fig. 15 that attaches #102 to #101) for mounting the applicator on an application robot (#101), so that the applicator is guided by the application robot (See Fig. 14 and Paragraph 0142);
a plurality of nozzles (See three sprayers D1 in Fig. 15, which each include #3 to make a plurality of nozzle) for emitting a respective jet of the application agent onto a component (See Paragraph 0021), the nozzles each being designed as a separate component (See Fig. 3); and
an applicator head at the distal end of the applicator (#10), wherein the applicator head comprises a respective nozzle holder (See Fig. 4 showing a portion of #10 with #1.1 and #2) for mounting the individual nozzles (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0096), wherein the individual nozzles are each mounted directly in the associated nozzle holders of the applicator head (See Fig. 4 and Fig. 13. #3 and D1 both directly attach to #1.1).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses wherein the nozzles are each anchored directly in the associated nozzle holder of the applicator head by a form-fit connection (See Figs. 2-4. A form fit-connection attaches #3 and #1.1 to the nozzle holder with screws that go through #3).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 17 above, Kraft further discloses wherein the form-fit connection is a screw connection (See Figs. 2-3 and Annotated Fig. 15 showing two screws that go through #3).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 17 above, Kraft further discloses wherein:
the nozzles each have a flat contact surface (See a bottom surface of #3 in Figs. 2 and 4);
the nozzle holders in the applicator head for mounting the nozzles each have a flat contact surface (See a flat plane on #10 in Fig. 2); and
the flat contact surfaces of the nozzles on the one hand and the nozzle holders on the other hand lie plane-parallel against each other in the mounted state of the nozzles (See Figs. 2-4. A flat bottom surface on #3 lies against a flat surface on #10 when the nozzle is mounted to the nozzle holder).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses wherein at least one of the nozzle holders of the applicator head comprises a receiving groove for receiving one of the nozzles (See a hole in #1.1 in Fig. 2), and one of the nozzles is mounted in the receiving groove of the nozzle holder in the applicator head (See Fig. 4 showing D1 of the nozzle mounted in the hole of #1.1).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 18 above, Kraft further discloses wherein the screw connections between the nozzles and the associated nozzle holders are each aligned at right angles to contact surfaces of the nozzle on the one hand and of the nozzle holder on the other hand (See Figs. 2-3 showing the two screws being perpendicular to #3 and a surface of #10), and the screw connections are each anchored in a threaded hole in the respective contact surface of the nozzle holder of the applicator head (See Fig. 2 showing two holes in #10 that the two screws thread into, with Fig. 3 showing an anchored state).
As to Claim 24, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses wherein:
the applicator comprises an elongated lance (#102) with a lance head at the distal end of the lance (See a right end of #102 in Annotated Fig. 15), the applicator head being attached to the lance head (See Fig. 15);
the applicator head is detachably mounted on the lance head (See Fig. 15. Based on Paragraph 0023 and the configuration shown with #10 being a different component from #102, #10 can be removed from #102);
the lance is rotatable relative to the mounting flange of the applicator (See Paragraph 0142); and
the applicator comprises a rotary feedthrough in order to be able to guide the application agent through the rotary feedthrough to the nozzles in various rotational positions of the lance (See Figs. 14-15 and Paragraphs 0059, 0104, 0142, and 0145. There is some material feed line within #102 that guides agent to the nozzles as #102 rotates)
As to Claim 25, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 24 above, Kraft further discloses wherein:
the applicator head has in cross-section at right angles to the lance an interfering contour which has a maximum lateral extension of less than 200 mm, 150 mm, 100 mm or less than 80 mm (See Paragraph 0138 disclosing that X1 can have a height of less than 2 cm, therefore the applicator head has a cross section resulting in a lateral interfering contour extension C shown in Annotated Fig. 15 that is less than 200 mm when some cross section is taken perpendicular to the lance); and
the applicator head has, in a side view transverse to the lance, an interfering contour which has a maximum extension transverse to the lance of less than 200 mm, 150 mm, 100 mm or less than 80 mm (See Paragraph 0138 disclosing that X1 can have a height of less than 2 cm, therefore the applicator head has a cross section resulting in a transverse interfering contour C shown in Annotated Fig. 15 that is less than 200 mm in some side view of the lance).
As to Claim 31, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses wherein:
the nozzles are flat jet nozzles, each of which emits a flat jet of the application agent (See Paragraph 0021);
the applicator comprises exactly three nozzles (See Fig. 15 and Paragraph 0106); and
the nozzles emit their jets in different directions (See Fig. 15 and Paragraph 0106).
As to Claim 32, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses an application robot with the applicator (See #100 in Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft in view of US PGPUB 2019/0344291 A1 to Vandepitte (“Vandepitte”).
Regarding Claim 22, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 18 above, Kraft does not specifically disclose wherein:
the nozzles each have a plurality of nozzle plates which are arranged parallel to one another;
the individual nozzle plates are flat;
the nozzles each have two clamping plates, the nozzle plates being arranged between the two clamping plates; and
the screw connection passes through the two clamping plates and through the nozzle plates (See Fig. 2, the nozzles each have one plate #3, and two screws go through #3).
However, Vandepitte discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0002), an applicator (See Paragraph 0023 and Fig. 3) comprising nozzles (See three nozzles #1) that each have a plurality of nozzle plates (See three nozzle plates #3, #4, and #3 in Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0023) which are arranged parallel to one another (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 3);
wherein the individual nozzle plates are flat (See Fig. 1);
the nozzles each have two clamping plates (#5 and #6, See Paragraph 0023),
the nozzle plates are arranged between the two clamping plates (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 3); and
a screw connection (#7) passes through the two clamping plates and through the nozzle plates (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, 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 applicator of Kraft by replacing the nozzles of Kraft with the nozzles of Vandepitte such that the nozzles each have a plurality of nozzle plates which are arranged parallel to one another; the individual nozzle plates are flat; the nozzles each have two clamping plates, the nozzle plates being arranged between the two clamping plates; and the screw connection passes through the two clamping plates and through the nozzle plates, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of compactly arranging the nozzles on the applicator so that they can get into narrow spaces (See Vandepitte Paragraph 0013).
As to Claim 23, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft further discloses wherein the nozzles are flat jet nozzles (See Paragraph 0021), each of which emits a flat jet in a respective jet plane (See Fig. 3 and Fig. 15 showing three different sprayers D1 mounted on #10 with each sprayer having a jet plane across a slit outlet on D1).
Regarding Claim 23, Kraft does not specifically disclose wherein the flat jet nozzles are arranged in such a way that the jet planes of the individual flat jet nozzles run parallel to each other (See Fig. 3 and Fig. 15 showing that the nozzles are coplanar such that the jet planes completely intersect and are thus not parallel).
However, Vandepitte discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraph 0002), an applicator (See Paragraph 0023 and Fig. 3), comprising nozzles (See three nozzles #1) that are flat jet nozzles (See Paragraph 0026), each of which emits a flat jet in a respective jet plane (See Figs. 3-4), wherein the flat jet nozzles are arranged in such a way that the jet planes of the individual flat jet nozzles run parallel to each other (See Paragraph 0039).
Therefore, 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 applicator of Kraft by replacing the nozzles of Kraft with the nozzles of Vandepitte such that the flat jet nozzles are arranged in so the jet planes of the individual flat jet nozzles run parallel to each other, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of spreading out sprayed material in three dimensions (See Vandepitte Paragraphs 0038-0039 and Figs. 3-4), thus resulting in expanded spray coverage.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft in view of US PGPUB 2014/0046491 A1 to Hoffman (“Hoffman”).
Regarding Claim 26, in reference to the applicator of Kraft as applied to Claim 15 above, Kraft does not specifically disclose wherein the applicator comprises a valve unit for controlling the material flow of the application agent to the nozzles wherein the valve unit enables a selective material discharge from the individual nozzles, and the valve unit is arranged in the lance head (See Paragraph 0142 and Fig. 15, no valve unit is disclosed or shown in the lance).
However, Hoffman discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0001-0003), an applicator (See Fig. 9) comprising a valve unit (#20) for controlling a material flow of an application agent (See Paragraph 0102) to nozzles (#D1, #D2, and #D3) wherein the valve unit enables a selective material discharge from each nozzle (See Paragraph 0102), and the valve unit is arranged in a lance head (See #21 which is on a head of #10).
Therefore, 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 applicator of Kraft by including the valve unit of Hoffman for controlling a material flow of the application agent to the nozzles wherein the valve unit enables a selective material discharge from the individual nozzles, and the valve unit is arranged in the lance head, since doing so would yield the predicable result of allowing control of supply of material to each nozzle in a quantity adjustable manner (See Hoffman Paragraph 0102).
As to Claim 27, in reference to the applicator of Kraft in view of Hoffman as applied to Claim 26 above, Hoffman further discloses wherein:
the valve unit for controlling the material flow of the application agent to the nozzles comprises a respective main valve for the individual nozzles (See #V2, #V3, and #V4 in Fig. 9), wherein there is no further valve between the main valves and the associated nozzles (See Fig. 9, there are no additional valves on #42, #43, and #44 between V2/V3/V4 and D1/D2/D3), so that the main valves control the material flow from the associated nozzles (See Paragraph 0102);
the individual main valves are each connected to the associated nozzles by a line (See #42, #43, and #44 in Fig. 9 and See Paragraphs 0080-0081); and
the lines from the main valves to the nozzles each have a line length of less than 50 cm (See Paragraph 0015 disclosing a distance between the valve unit and the nozzle can be smaller than 50 cm)
As to Claim 28, in reference to the applicator of Kraft in view of Hoffman as applied to Claim 27 above, Hoffman further discloses wherein the lines from the main valves to the nozzles each have a line length of less than 20 cm (See Paragraph 0015 disclosing a distance between the valve unit and the nozzle can be smaller than 20 cm).
As to Claim 29, in reference to the applicator of Kraft in view of Hoffman as applied to Claim 27 above, Hoffman further discloses wherein the lines from the main valves to the nozzles each have a line length of less than 10 cm (See Paragraph 0015 disclosing a distance between the valve unit and the nozzle can be smaller than 10 cm, and can be below 1 cm).
As to Claim 30, in reference to the applicator of Kraft in view of Hoffman as applied to Claim 27 above, Hoffman further discloses the applicator further comprising a material circulation system upstream of the valve unit (See Fig. 9 and Paragraph 0076, a system that includes #V1, #RL, and #VK and that feeds recycled material into #20 is the material circulation system, which is upstream from #20 in a direction of recirculation from #V1) with a feed line for supplying the application agent to the valve unit (#VK, See Paragraph 0076 and Fig. 1) and a return line (#RL) for returning the application agent from the valve unit (See Paragraph 0103).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 October 7, 2026
