DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazono 5,941,457 in view of Kazama 5,865,380.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Nakazono teaches a rotary atomizing head type coating machine (figure 3) configured with an air motor powered by compressed air (air turbine 2), comprising: a hollow rotary shaft (2a, with hollow channel 2b that acts as a feed tube) that is rotatably supported in a state of extending in a front-rear direction along an axis of the air motor (as shown in figure 3), the hollow rotary shaft having a front unit protruding from the air motor (front of 2a protruding from 2 in figure 3); the hollow channel of the rotary shaft (2b) extending through the rotary shaft to the front unit of the rotary shaft (2b extends through the length of 2a in figure 3); a cup-shaped rotary atomizing head (3) attached to the front unit of the rotary shaft (3 coupled to 2a in figure 3) and discharging the paint supplied from the feed tube from discharge edge at a front end of the rotary atomizing head (Col. 2, ll. 38-43); a cylindrical shaping air ring (4) provided on the outer periphery of the rotary atomizing head (4 surrounds 3 in figure 3); and a shaping air jetting unit provided in front of the shaping air ring and blowing shaping air toward the paint discharged from the discharge edge of the rotary atomizing head (nozzle 4a in figure 3), wherein said shaping air ring is provided with an isolating means for isolating said shaping air jetting unit from air flowing around said shaping air ring (cylindrical eaves on downstream end of 4a surrounding outer side and radially inner side of 4a in figure 3 below). However, Nakazono does not teach paint is configured to pass through a feed tube through the hollow shaft instead of through the shaft itself. Kazama teaches a feed tube (3) passing through a hollow shaft (1) of a rotary atomizer (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to substitute the paint nozzle within a hollow shaft, as taught by Kazama, for the hollow shaft that sends paint absent a separate nozzle of Nakazono, in order to obtain predictable results, which in this case is passing paint from a source through a shaft to an outlet of a rotary atomizer. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) for substitution of one technique for another where the result is the same. MPEP 2143 I B.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Nakazono
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Nakazono in view of Kazama teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Kazama further teaches the isolating means is a cylindrical eaves portion provided in front of the shaping air ring so as to surround the shaping air jetting unit and extending forward beyond an open end of the shaping air jetting unit (cylindrical eaves downstream and surrounding jetting unit 4a in figure 3 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the feed tube within the hollow rotary shaft have been addressed in the rejection of Nakazono in view of Kazama above, where 1) a hollow rotary shaft with a passage and 2) a feed tube within the hollow rotary shaft, will perform the same function of sending paint towards an exit end of the rotary shaft.
Applicant argues that the cylindrical member (5) of Nakazono does not act as a cylindrical eaves. The cylindrical member (5) is not relied upon as the isolating means in the rejection above. The cylindrical eaves relied upon is pointed to in figure 3 of Nakazono above, and is the same structure as isolating means (10) in figure 1 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights