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 .
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 5-8 and 16-18 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said doors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation “said door” or “more than one door.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said nozzles of each set.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear to what set the phrase “each set” refers. Claim 16 depends from Claim 8, which recites a second array and a third array, while Claim 8 ultimately depends from Claim 1, which recites “said first array of nozzles including at least one set of nozzles.” Therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation “said nozzles of each set” refers to multiple sets of “at least one set of nozzles” of a first array of nozzles as recited in Claim 1 or whether “each set” might also refer to other nozzles of other array. Examiner considers the limitation to refer either to nozzles of a set or sets of a first array as in Claim 1 or to refer to some set of nozzles of any of first through third arrays.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said manifold" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because none of the claims from which Claim 16 depends recite a manifold. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation “a manifold.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “in a transverse direction relative to said component.” The limitation is indefinite, because the claims do not sufficiently define axes of a component (which is an aspect of an intended use, not given significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus) and the specification does not provide sufficient guidance as to coordinates or axes of a component, which should be considered, for example, longitudinal or transverse. Claim 9 refers to a transverse direction in relation to a direction of movement of a component, but not to a transverse direction relative to the component. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation that an axis of the nozzles form some angle to some indefinite vector on a surface of a component or to some direction of motion of the component.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “oppositely inclined.” The limitation is indefinite, because the limitation is not defined in the claim, and the specification does not provide adequate guidance as to what is meant by “oppositely inclined,” whether, for example, is supposed to mean in a direction 180 degrees from the “transverse direction” or whether it means a negative rotational angle (e.g. transverse direction: 30 degrees, “oppositely inclined” -30 degrees). Examiner considers the limitation to include either interpretation.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected as depending from other rejected claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamford (US 2019/0054493) in view of Bamford (US 6,444,032).
Regarding Claim 1, Bamford (US’493) teach a coating apparatus including a first (upper) compartment 400 to receive a component to be coated [0063], a second (lower) compartment 402 below said first compartment to contain a coating material (id.), a carriage assembly 74 to lower said component from said first compartment to said second compartment for application of coating and to lift said component from said second compartment after application of coating (Abstract; [0040,0049,0072-0075]), and a blow off apparatus to remove excess coating material from component, said blow off apparatus including a first array of nozzles 438 in said first compartment to project a fluid toward said component as it is raised from said second compartment to remove excess coating material from said component [0066,0075] (Figs. 3,18-19,21). US’493 fails to teach that said first array of nozzles includes at least one set of nozzles mounted to be capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of said fluid toward said component.
Bamford (US’032) is analogous art in the field of fluidized bed powder coating, and in addition to teaching a carriage for lowering a substrate into a fluidized bed (col. 5, lines 23-27) and an array of blow off nozzles 156 for removing excess coating powder from a coated component (Figs. 1, 10, 14, 15; col. 7, lines 20-37), US’032 teaches a set of nozzles mounted to be capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of said fluid toward said component in order to be able to direct air towards the surface of the component (Fig. 14; Claim 15; col. 7, lines 20-37; col. 3, lines 39-49). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’493 with at least one set of nozzles mounted to be capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of said fluid toward said component, because US’032 suggests an analogous apparatus, including a plurality of blow off nozzles, attached so that they are capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of air towards a component for removing excess coating powder.
Regarding Claim 2, US’493 teaches a first array of nozzles comprising a plurality of sets of nozzles, each of said sets being arranged at vertically spaced locations in said first compartment (Fig. 19). US’493 fails to teach that each set is arranged to oscillate. However, as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’493 with each of said sets of nozzles arranged to be capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of said fluid toward said component, because US’032 suggests an analogous apparatus, including a plurality of blow off nozzles, attached so that they are capable of oscillating and varying the direction of projection of air towards a component for removing excess coating powder.
Regarding Claim 3, US’032 suggests that a plurality of nozzles are capable of oscillating conjointly, since they are attached to a tilt frame (Fig. 14, see arrow 37c; col. 3, lines 39-49). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of US’493 with a first array of nozzles capable of oscillating conjointly, because US’032 suggests that a plurality of nozzles are attached to a tilt frame which would move any nozzles attached to it at the same time (i.e. conjointly).
Regarding Claim 4, US’493 teaches that each set of nozzles of said first array is operated to project fluid sequentially as said component is raised from said second component [0066].
Regarding Claim 5, US’493 teaches that said first compartment has a door 420 to allow ingress and egress of said component and a second array of nozzles is disposed in said first compartment to one side of said door to allow passage of said component in to said first compartment through said door (Figs. 19-20; [0064-0065,0071,0076]).
Regarding Claim 6, US’493 teaches that said first array of nozzles is located on an opposite side of said first compartment to said second array whereby at least one array is provided on either side of said component (Figs. 19-21; [0066]).
Regarding Claim 7, US’493 teaches an array of nozzles, including five rows (Fig. 21). Any number of rows less than five can be considered a first array and the other rows can be considered another array adjacent to the first array. Additionally, it would have been a prima facie obvious duplication of parts to duplicate the nozzle arrays on any or all walls (MPEP 2144.04), including those either opposite or adjacent one or more arrays, and in order to be able to blow off another side of a component.
Regarding Claim 8, US’493 does not specifically require that the nozzles are either fixed or not fixed. US’032 suggests nozzles capable of tilting, and thus oscillating, It would have been obvious to fix a nozzle direction or omit a movement of a nozzle in order to omit a function of changing direction to blow off an area of some component at a specific angle (MPEP 2144.04), and the silence of US’493 on the matter suggests that movement is not necessary to achieve a goal of blowing off excess powder.
Regarding Claim 9, US’032 teaches that a set of nozzles is capable of oscillating about an axis of rotation transverse (horizontal) to a direction of movement of said component (vertical) (Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify a set of nozzles capable of oscillating about an axis of rotation transverse (i.e. perpendicular) to a direction of movement of a component, because US’032 is analogous art that teaches an analogous array of blow off nozzles which is capable of oscillating about an axis of rotation transverse to a direction of movement of a component.
Regarding Claim 10, US’493 teaches that each set of nozzles of said first array is supported on side walls 410 of said first compartment (Figs. 19-21; [0066]), and US’032 suggests that a pivot for rotation is in the middle of a 1 -dimensional array of nozzles for oscillation about said axis of rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of references so that each set of nozzles of the first array is supported on a sidewall or on sidewalls of the first compartment for oscillation about said axis of rotation so that they are both supported and are capable of oscillating.
Regarding Claim 11, US’493 teaches that at least some subset of nozzles, which can be considered “said nozzles,” of each set of nozzles of said first array are offset from the middle of a row of nozzles axis of rotation (Figs. 19-21). US’032 suggests that a pivot for rotation is in the middle of a 1 -dimensional array of nozzles for oscillation about said axis of rotation (Figs. 14-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of references so that at least some nozzles (“said nozzles”) of each set of nozzles of the first array are offset from the axis of rotation, which US’032 suggests is in the middle of a set of nozzles.
Regarding Claim 16, US’493 teaches that nozzles of various of sets nozzles have two different configurations along a manifold (e.g. different configurations of nozzle shapes, different configurations of nozzle angles, different configurations of nozzle lengths) (Fig. 21). The combination of references fails to teach that said configurations, whatever they are, alternate along said manifold. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus by alternating two configurations (e.g. nozzle shape, angle, or length) as desired or as needed to achieve adequate blow off of excess powder from a component during operation.
Regarding Claim 17, US’493 teaches a set of nozzles with two different configurations along a manifold, wherein one set of nozzles (a first configuration) is elevated above another set of nozzles (a second configuration, and least some nozzles alternate in elevation (e.g. nozzles 436 and bottom nozzles on 446 in Fig. 21). The combination of references does not clearly teach that nozzles of a first configuration are elevated above nozzles of a second configuration to provide vertically spaced fluid flows toward said component. However, US’493 would have suggested that at least some nozzles, elevated over others in alternating fashion along a manifold, would be suitable to blow off excess coating. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of references wherein said nozzles of a first configuration are elevated above nozzles of a second configuration to provide vertically spaced fluid flows toward said component, because US’493 would have suggested the suitability of such a configuration for blowing off excess coating.
Regarding Claim 18, US’493 teaches that the nozzles can be oriented to various angles (Fig. 21). The combination of references fails to teach a specific first configuration of nozzles inclined in a transverse direction of a component and a second configuration of nozzles oppositely inclined (e.g. 180 degrees from the “transverse direction”). However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus with a first configuration of nozzles rotated at an angle + A (e.g. +30 degrees from center) and a second configuration of nozzles rotated at angle - A (e.g. -30 degrees from center) in order to ensure all nozzles are not all blowing on the same regions on a component while failing to blow excess powder from other regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or to fairly suggest a manifold connected to sidewalls by a bell crank pivoted to supports on the side walls.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ladney, Jr. (US 3459891) (oscillating nozzles)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
