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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/295,357 filed on 5/19/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 13, each instance of “the range” should be revised to “a range” to ensure clarity in the claims.
In Claims 4-5 and 7, each instance of “the distributor disc holder” should be revised to “the disc holder” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 20, “the axial gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup” should be revised to “the axial gap between the front side of the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 15, 17-24, and 26-33 of US-12145166-B2. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 31 of US-12145166-B2 in view of US PGPUB 2012/0180722 A1 to Nolte et al. (“Nolte”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US-12145166-B2 substantially contain the subject matter of the claims of the instant application; or it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claim, as summarized below.
Application 18/920,067
US Patent 12,145,166 B2
Claim 1
Claim 15
A rotary atomizer for applying a coating agent to a component, comprising: a hollow bell cup shaft; a paint nozzle arranged in the bell cup shaft and positioned to discharge the coating agent in an axial direction through an outlet opening; a bell cup mounted on the bell cup shaft, the bell cup including: an overflow surface at a front face of the bell cup, wherein the coating agent to be applied, coming from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle, flows outwards over the overflow surface to a spray edge of the bell cup; and a nozzle chamber surrounding the paint nozzle; a disc holder including a central bore surrounding the paint nozzle to form an annular gap with the paint nozzle; and a distributor disc mounted to the disc holder for distributing the coating agent emerging from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle, wherein the distributor disc forms a gap with the overflow surface of the bell cup; wherein at least the annular gap and the gap are sized such that an air pressure at the outlet opening of the paint nozzle during operation is lower than an air pressure in the nozzle chamber, in order to prevent a backflow of the coating agent from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle backwards in a direction of the nozzle chamber as a result of a pressure difference.
Claim 15 substantially contains all of the claimed limitations. The examiner notes that if the rotary atomizer of Claim 15 as a whole is designed to prevent backflow as claimed in Claim 15, then the gap and axial gap must be sized to prevent such a backflow, thus Claim 15 of US Patent 12,145,166 B2 substantially reads on the limitations of Claim 1 of Application 18/920,067
Claim 2
Claim 31
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the annular gap is in the range of 0.2 mm - 0.6 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 30, wherein an annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a radial gap width of 0.2 mm - 0.6 mm.
Claim 3
Claim 31, modified by Nolte
The rotary atomizer according to claim 2, wherein the gap is in the range of 0.1 mm - 0.25 mm.
Claim 31 doesn't disclose wherein the gap is in the range of 0.1 mm - 0.25 mm. However, Nolte discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) wherein dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components are modified (See Paragraph 0025) to control air pressure differentials and vary fluid flow directions (See Paragraphs 0054, 0057).Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Claim 31 of US Patent 12,145,166 B2 such that the gap is in the range of 0.1 mm - 0.25 mm, as doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Nolte to yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057).
Claim 4
Claim 32
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a length in the range of 4.5 mm - 8.5 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 30, wherein an annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a length of 4.5 mm - 8.5 mm.
Claim 5
Claim 33
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a cross-sectional area of 2 mm2 - 7 mm2 in an axial cross section.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 30, wherein an annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a cross-sectional area of 2 mm2-7 mm2 in an axial cross section.
Claim 6
Claim 29
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the paint nozzle has an outer diameter of less than 4 mm at a free end.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the paint nozzle has an outer diameter of less than 4 mm at a free end.
Claim 7
Claim 30
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the central bore in the distributor disc holder has a diameter in the range of 3.2 mm - 3.8 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the central bore in the distributor disc holder has a diameter of substantially 3.2 mm or 3.8 mm.
Claim 8
Claim 26
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the gap between the overflow surface and the distributor disc has a gap length in a flow direction in the range of 3 mm - 10 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the gap between the overflow surface of the bell cup and the distributor disc has a gap length in a flow direction which is in the range of 3 mm - 10 mm.
Claim 9
Claim 27
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle chamber has a diameter of more than 11 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the nozzle chamber in the bell cup has an external diameter of more than 11 mm, in order to increase the gap width between the paint nozzle and the inner wall of the nozzle chamber and thereby to achieve a pressure ratio to reduce the backflow.
Claim 10
Claim 15
The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, wherein the bell cup includes an exterior rinsing chamber for rinsing an outer circumferential surface of the bell cup with a rinsing agent, and multiple exterior rinsing channels extending between the nozzle chamber and the exterior rinsing chamber for feeding rinsing agent from the paint nozzle onto the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup for exterior rinsing of the bell cup.
...e5) an exterior rinsing chamber on the rear side of the bell cup for rinsing the outer circumferential surface with a rinsing agent, the exterior rinsing chamber forming an annular gap on an outside of the bell cup shaft with a specific gap width in the radial direction, e6) several exterior rinsing channels in the bell cup between the paint nozzle and the exterior rinsing chamber for feeding rinsing agent from the paint nozzle onto the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup for exterior rinsing of the bell cup...
Claim 11
Claim 17
The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein a quantity of exterior rinsing channels in the bell cup is less than 65.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein a quantity of exterior rinsing channels in the bell cup is less than 65 to achieve a pressure ratio to prevent the backflow.
Claim 12
Claim 18
The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein the exterior rinsing channels together have a total cross-sectional area smaller than 20 mm2.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the exterior rinsing channels together have a total cross-sectional area smaller than 20 mm2 to achieve a pressure ratio to prevent the backflow.
Claim 13
Claim 19
The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein the exterior rinsing channels each have an internal diameter in the range of 1 mm - 2 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the exterior rinsing channels each have an internal diameter of 1 mm - 2 mm in order to achieve a pressure ratio to prevent the backflow.
Claim 14
Claim 20
The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein the exterior rinsing channels each have a total length of 5 mm - 15 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the exterior external rinsing channels each have a total length of 5 mm - 15 mm.
Claim 15
Claim 21
The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein the exterior rinsing channels each include a first straight tap hole and a second straight tap hole, the first straight tap hole extending from the nozzle chamber to the second straight tap hole, the second straight tap hole extending from the first straight tap hole to the exterior rinsing chamber, and the second straight tap holes are shorter than the first straight tap holes.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein a) the external rinsing channels each consist of a first straight tap hole and a second straight tap hole, the first straight tap hole extending from the nozzle chamber to the second straight tap hole, the second straight tap hole extending from the first straight tap hole to the exterior rinsing chamber and b) the second straight tap holes are shorter than the first straight tap holes tap bores on a paint nozzle side.
Claim 16
Claim 22
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the second straight tap holes each have a length of 0.5 mm – 2 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 21, wherein the second straight tap holes each have a length of 0.5 mm - 2 mm.
Claim 17
Claim 23
17. The rotary atomizer according to claim 16, wherein the first straight tap holes each have a length of 5 mm - 10 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 22, wherein the first straight tap holes each have a length of 5 mm - 10 mm.
Claim 18
Claim 24
18. The rotary atomizer according to claim 10, wherein the exterior rinsing chamber in the bell cup has an external diameter of more than 30.5 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein the exterior rinsing chamber in the bell cup has an external diameter of more than 30.5 mm in order to achieve a pressure ratio to avoid the backflow.
Claim 19
Claim 15
19. The rotary atomizer according to claim 1, including a shaping air ring positioned behind the bell cup to discharge shaping air to form a spray jet of the coating agent, wherein the shaping air ring is positioned to form an axial gap between a front side of the shaping air ring and a rear side of the bell cup.
..."a) a shaping air ring to discharge shaping air to form the spray jet of the coating agent, ... e1) a gap between a front side of the shaping air ring and a rear side of the bell cup with a certain gap width in the axial direction"...
Claim 20
Claim 28
20. The rotary atomizer according to claim 19, wherein the axial gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup is greater than 3.0 mm.
The rotary atomizer according to claim 15, wherein a) the gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup has a gap width which is greater than 3.0 mm, in order to achieve a pressure ratio to prevent the backflow, and b) the bell cup shaft is exposed in the gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup without an external cover in order to achieve the pressure ratio to prevent the backflow.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,851,397 to Van Der Steur et al. (“Van Der Steur”) in view of US PGPUB 2012/0180722 A1 to Nolte et al. (“Nolte”).
As to Claim 1, Van Der Steur discloses a rotary atomizer for applying a coating agent to a component (See #10 in Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a hollow bell cup shaft (#15);
a paint nozzle (#32) arranged in the bell cup shaft and positioned to discharge the coating agent in an axial direction through an outlet opening (See Annotated Fig. 3 and See Fig. 5);
a bell cup (#12) mounted on the bell cup shaft (See Fig. 3), the bell cup including:
an overflow surface at a front face of the bell cup (See Annotated Fig. 3), wherein the coating agent to be applied, coming from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle, flows outwards over the overflow surface to a spray edge of the bell cup (See Fig. 5); and
a nozzle chamber surrounding the paint nozzle (#17);
a disc holder (#16) including a central bore surrounding the paint nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 5) to form an annular gap with the paint nozzle (See D in Annotated Fig. 5); and
a distributor disc (#48) mounted to the disc holder for distributing the coating agent emerging from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 5), wherein the distributor disc forms a gap with the overflow surface of the bell cup (See B in Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur as applied to Claim 1 above, Van Der Steur does not specifically disclose wherein at least the annular gap and the gap are sized such that an air pressure at the outlet opening of the paint nozzle during operation is lower than an air pressure in the nozzle chamber, in order to prevent a backflow of the coating agent from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle backwards in a direction of the nozzle chamber as a result of a pressure difference (Col. 8 Lines 60-62 of Van Der Steur state that paint is injected through #18 “forced under pressure” to paint nozzle #42, however Van Der Steur does not provide specific dimensions for the annular gap and the gap that yield the claimed function).
However, Van Der Steur does disclose where all coating agent flows forwards in an opposite direction of the nozzle chamber (See Col. 9 Lines 1-3 and Fig. 5). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.I and MPEP 2114.I.
Additionally, Nolte discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) wherein dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components are modified (See Paragraph 0025) to control air pressure differentials and vary fluid flow directions (See Paragraphs 0054, 0057).
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 rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur as applied to Claim 1 above such that at least the annular gap and the gap are sized such that an air pressure at the outlet opening of the paint nozzle during operation is lower than an air pressure in the nozzle chamber, in order to prevent a backflow of the coating agent from the outlet opening of the paint nozzle backwards in a direction of the nozzle chamber as a result of a pressure difference, as doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Nolte to yield the predictable result of helping to control a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the annular gap is in the range of 0.2 mm - 0.6 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the annular gap be 0.2 mm - 0.6 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the annular gap dimension affects the overall annular gap size and achieves the recognized result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0032 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 2 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the gap is in the range of 0.1 mm - 0.25 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap be 0.1 mm - 0.25 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the gap dimension which affects the overall gap size and achieves the recognized result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0027 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 4, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a length in the range of 4.5 mm - 8.5 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a length of the annular gap be 4.5 mm - 8.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a length of the annular gap which affects an overall size of the annular gap and achieves the recognized result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0033 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 5, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the annular gap between the paint nozzle and the distributor disc holder has a cross-sectional area of 2 mm2 - 7 mm2 in an axial cross section (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cross-sectional area of the annular gap be 2 mm2 - 7 mm2 in an axial cross section, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a cross-sectional area of the annular gap which affects an overall size of the annular gap and achieves the recognized result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the paint nozzle has an outer diameter of less than 4 mm at a free end (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above such that the paint nozzle has an outer diameter of less than 4 mm at a free end, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of coating agent to coat a particular portion of a component being coated with a certain amount of coating agent at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nabeshima as applied to Claim 1 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the central bore in the distributor disc holder has a diameter in the range of 3.2 mm - 3.8 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above such the central bore in the distributor disc holder has a diameter in the range of 3.2 mm - 3.8 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of coating agent to coat a particular portion of a component being coated with a certain amount of coating agent at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0032 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the gap between the overflow surface and the distributor disc has a gap length in a flow direction in the range of 3 mm - 10 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components).
However, Nolte discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) wherein dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components are modified (See Paragraph 0025) to control air pressure differentials and vary fluid flow directions (See Paragraphs 0054, 0057).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above such that the gap between the overflow surface and the distributor disc has a gap length in a flow direction in the range of 3 mm - 10 mm, as doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Nolte to yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0028 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van De Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the nozzle chamber has a diameter of more than 11 mm. (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components or diameters of component features).
However, Nolte discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) wherein dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components are modified (See Paragraph 0025) to control air pressure differentials and vary fluid flow directions (See Paragraphs 0054, 0057).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above such that the nozzle chamber has a diameter of more than 11 mm, as doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Nolte of modifying gap dimensions to yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Van Der Steur further discloses wherein the bell cup includes an exterior rinsing chamber for rinsing an outer circumferential surface of the bell cup with a rinsing agent (See Annotated Fig. 6, the exterior rinsing chamber can be considered to include #58, #52, and an area below #52.), and multiple exterior rinsing channels extending between the nozzle chamber and the exterior rinsing chamber (#54) for feeding rinsing agent from the paint nozzle onto the outer circumferential surface of the bell cup for exterior rinsing of the bell cup (See Col. 7 Lines 15-45).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van Der Steur further discloses wherein a quantity of exterior rinsing channels in the bell cup is less than 65 (See Van De Steur Col. 9 Lines 51-57 disclosing eight exterior rinsing channels #54).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the exterior rinsing channels together have a total cross-sectional area smaller than 20 mm2 (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above such that wherein the exterior rinsing channels together have a total cross-sectional area smaller than 20 mm2, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0020 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 13, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the exterior rinsing channels each have an internal diameter in the range of 1 mm - 2 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above such that the exterior rinsing channels each have an internal diameter in the range of 1 mm - 2 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0021 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates that the range is advantageous but does not explicitly indicate that the range is critical).
Regarding Claim 14, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the exterior rinsing channels each have a total length of 5 mm - 15 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above such that the exterior rinsing channels each have a total length of 5 mm - 15 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0022 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van Der Steur further discloses wherein the exterior rinsing channels each include a first straight tap hole (See “inlet bore” in Annotated Fig. 6) and a second straight tap hole (See “outlet bore” in Annotated Fig. 6), the first straight tap hole extending from the nozzle chamber to the second straight tap hole (See Annotated Fig. 6), the second straight tap hole extending from the first straight tap hole to the exterior rinsing chamber (See Annotated Fig. 6), and the second straight tap holes are shorter than the first straight tap holes (See Annotated Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 16, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 15 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the second straight tap holes each have a length of 0.5 mm – 2 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 15 above such that the second straight tap holes each have a length of 0.5 mm – 2 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0025 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 16 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the first straight tap holes each have a length of 5 mm - 10 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 16 above such that the first straight tap holes each have a length of 5 mm - 10 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0025 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
Regarding Claim 18, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the exterior rinsing chamber in the bell cup has an external diameter of more than 30.5 mm (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of any component features).
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 10 above such that the exterior rinsing chamber in the bell cup has an external diameter of more than 30.5 mm, as doing so would yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow pattern of rinsing fluid to rinse a particular area of the rotary atomizer with a certain amount of rinsing fluid at a desired intensity and based on an overall size of the rotary atomizer. No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0026 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 1 above, Nolte further discloses the rotary atomizer including a shaping air ring positioned behind the bell cup (See Annotated Fig. 3) to discharge shaping air to form a spray jet of the coating agent (See Col. 5 Lines 35-37), wherein the shaping air ring is positioned to form an axial gap between a front side of the shaping air ring and a rear side of the bell cup (See “G” in Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the rotary atomizer of Van Der Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 19 above, Van de Steur does not specifically disclose wherein the axial gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup is greater than 3.0 mm. (Van De Steur does not disclose any specific dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components or diameters of component features).
However, Nolte discloses a rotary atomizer (See Fig. 1) wherein dimensions of gaps between surfaces of components are modified (See Paragraph 0025) to control air pressure differentials and vary fluid flow directions (See Paragraphs 0054, 0057).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 dimensions of the rotary atomizer of Van De Steur in view of Nolte as applied to Claim 19 above such that the axial gap between the shaping air ring and the rear side of the bell cup is greater than 3.0 mm., as doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Nolte to yield the predictable result of controlling a fluid flow direction (See Nolte Paragraphs 0025, 0054, and 0057). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0030 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates a “preferred” range).
PNG
media_image1.png
947
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
670
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights