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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 24, 2025 was received has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-9 are in the application. This action is based on the claims submitted October 30, 2025 in the Response After Final Action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The previous objection of the title of the invention for not being descriptive is withdrawn based on the submission of an amended title.
The specification is objected to for informal or awkward. Paragraph 62 should be revised
Paragraph 62 recites:
“However, in the paint tank-equipped electrostatic coating device 1 according to the present embodiment, by performing the operation of discharging the previous color paint (residual paint) remaining in the paint chamber 11B and pre-cleaning the paint chamber 11B after the coating by the coating machine 3 is completed until the paint inflow port 2C of the housing 2 is connected to the CCVU, it is possible to shorten the time of the color change operation and improve the productivity.”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“However, in the paint tank-equipped electrostatic coating device 1 according to the present embodiment, it is possible to shorten the time of the color change operation and improve the productivity by performing the operation of discharging the previous color paint (residual paint) remaining in the paint chamber 11B and pre-cleaning the paint chamber 11B after completion of the coating by the coating machine 3 2C of the housing 2 is connected to the CCVU,
Additionally, the combination of “completed until” is awkward. It is believed that
1/ the discharging and pre-cleaning occurs until the paint inflow port is connected. i.e. before the paint inflow port is connected;
2/ the discharging and pre-cleaning occurs after completion of the coating operation; and
3/ the paint inflow port is connected after the discharging and pre-cleaning operations which occurs after completion of the coating operation.
The revision above is meant to communicate this more concisely. Clarification is requested.
Specifically, the Abstract, paragraphs 10, 59, 62, and 75 should also be reviewed and revised for clarity.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the control device receives a positive confirmation signal that the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit”.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high voltage” previously used in claim 1 is a relative term, the specification, paragraph 28, cites voltage supplied as -60kV to -120 kV. Examiner will interpret the term “high voltage” as a voltage in this range.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In addition to the issue above concerning antecedent basis, the following portion of the claim is awkward
” a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the control device receives a positive confirmation signal that the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit ” .
A suggested revision based on paragraphs 39, 47, 56, and 59-62 is as follows:
” a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after a coating operation by the coating machine is completed until tsaid control device outputs control signals to electrical components mounted to the electrostatic coating device,”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Specification as-filed does not disclose: the structure of “ the control device receives a positive confirmation signal” nor
the controller configured to perform the following function:
“a control device configured to perform control … until the control device receives a positive confirmation signal that the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit”
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. Num. 20170197224 A1 to Taube et al (hereinafter Taube) .
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi teaches a paint tank-equipped electrostatic coating device, comprising: a housing (1) having a paint inflow port ( port in 32 which receives line 36 in Fig. 4) connected to a color change valve unit (37) for changing a color of a paint; a coating machine (6: 9, 8, 7) which is provided in the housing, wherein the coating machine includes an air motor (7) having a hollow rotating shaft (8) and a rotary atomizing head (9) mounted to the hollow rotating shaft in front of the air motor; a paint flow path (21) which extends toward the rotary atomizing head (9) in the hollow rotating shaft and through which the paint supplied to the rotary atomizing head circulates; a paint tank device (16) which is provided in the housing (1), wherein the paint tank device (16) is configured to supply the paint stored in a paint chamber (17, 19) to the rotary atomizing head through the paint flow path (21); a high voltage generator (11) which applies a high voltage to the paint discharged from the paint flow path (21) a tank cleaning flow path, wherein the tank cleaning flow path (53 to 54 to 45 in Fig. 8) is configured to supply cleaning fluids for cleaning the paint chamber of the paint tank device; a waste liquid discharge flow path (57D to 45 to 46 in Fig. 8) configured to discharge a waste liquid flowed out of the paint chamber. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 14-16, 36, 51, 54-56, 60-61, 70, 72, 74-75, 83, 99, 111, 130, 155-157 and Fig. 2-6, 8, 14-16.)
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit.
Matsumoto is directed to a painting robot.
Matsumoto teaches sensor (66) as part of a control device (control unit) provides stop signal which automatically closes paint feed valve (43). (See Matsumoto, Abstract, paragraphs 15-20, 96, 126, 129, 139-140, 152-153, 147, 149, 156, 165, 177.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit; because Matsumoto teaches once supply of paint is stopped supply of cleaning materials can begin with use of sensor as part of a control unit. (See Matsumoto, Abstract, paragraphs 15-20, 32, 94-99, 126, 129, 139-140, 152-153, 147, 149, 156, 165, 177.)
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit.
Taube is directed to a liquid distribution system and method.
Taube teaches a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the control device (the paint distribution system controller) receives a positive confirmation signal (senses the pig has returned) that the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit (paint exchange module). (See Taube, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 52, 63, 108, 111-112, 114-118, 305.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control device configured to perform control for cleaning the paint chamber after coating by the coating machine is completed until the paint inflow port of the housing is connected to the color change valve unit; because Taube teaches that control mechanism enables the paint to be supplied once the supporting structures are in the right position. (See Taube, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 52, 63, 108, 111-112, 114-118, 305.)
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. color change valve unit for changing the color…; cleaning flow path supplies…, device which performs control for cleaning). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi teaches a tank side discharge air supply flow path (37Ar, 40Ar, 36, 55Ar path between 37Ar, 40Ar, 36, 55Ar and sprayer 9) for supplying compressed air connected to the tank cleaning flow path; and a waste liquid discharge fluid supply flow path for supplying compressed air (55Ar, 40Ar) connected to the waste liquid discharge flow path (45). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 80, 95, and Figs. 4 and 8.) Examiner is considering a tank side discharge air supply flow to be equivalent to air supply flow path on either side of the tank.
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Yamauchi teaches the tank cleaning flow path is provided with a tank side control valve (37, 47, 53, 53Lq) for supplying cleaning liquid (55Lq), and the waste liquid discharge fluid supply flow path is provided with a waste liquid discharge side control valves (53) for supplying cleaning fluid (55Lq). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 80, 95, and Figs. 4 and 8.)
Examiner is considering a tank side control valve and waste liquid discharge side control valve to be equivalent to valves on either side of the tank. Examiner is considering a waste liquid discharge side control valve to be equivalent to valves on either side of the waste liquid.
Claim 3 recites an intended use clause (i. e. for supplying cleaning liquid). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 4, Yamauchi teaches check valve (121) to provide flow and prevent its backflow (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 155, and Fig. 16.)
Check valves are known way to provide flow in one direction for wash fluid. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 155, and Fig. 16.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the tank side discharge air supply flow path is provided with a first check valve which allows the compressed air to circulate toward the tank cleaning flow path and prevents the reverse flow, and the waste liquid discharge fluid supply flow path is provided with a second check valve which allows the compressed air to circulate toward the waste liquid discharge flow path and prevents the reverse flow with a reasonableexpectation of success, because this would reduce contamination due to backflow. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 155, and Fig. 16.)
Claim 4 recites an intended use clause (i. e. which allows… and which prevents…). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Yamauchi teaches a flow path fluidly connected to the paint inflow port ( port in 32 which receives line 36 in Fig. 4) and the paint tank device (16) to supply the paint received from the paint inflow port ( port in 32 which receives line 36 in Fig. 4) to the paint chamber (17, 19). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 14-16, 36, 51, 54-56, 60-61, 70, 72, 74-75, 83, 99, 111, 130, 155-157 and Fig. 2-6, 8, 14-16.)
The previous rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 6,164,651 to Yoshida et al (hereinafter Yoshida) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) and US Pat. Pub. Num. 20170197224 A1 to Taube et al (hereinafter Taube) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Num. 6,164,651 to Yoshida et al (hereinafter Yoshida) .
Regarding claim 6, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach the paint tank device further comprises: a tank body defining the paint chamber, and a piston having a first side and a second side opposite the first side located in the paint chamber, the piston being axially movable in the chamber, wherein the paint in the paint chamber is disposed at the first side of the piston in the paint chamber, and wherein a screw shaft is connected to the second side of the piston.
Yoshida is directed to a painting robot.
Yoshida teaches the paint tank device further comprises: a tank body defining the paint chamber, and a piston (59) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side located in the paint chamber, the piston being axially movable in the chamber, wherein the paint (58) in the paint chamber is disposed at the first side of the piston in the paint chamber, and wherein a screw shaft (61, 62) is connected to the second side of the piston). (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the paint tank device further comprises: a tank body defining the paint chamber, and a piston having a first side and a second side opposite the first side located in the paint chamber, the piston being axially movable in the chamber, wherein the paint in the paint chamber is disposed at the first side of the piston in the paint chamber, and wherein a screw shaft is connected to the second side of the piston; because Yoshida teaches this enables servo motor to control the start and stop in synchronism with opening and closing of the paint valve. (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
Regarding claim 7, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach a motor coupled to the screw shaft, wherein the motor is configured to rotationally drive the screw shaft and cause the screw shaft and the piston to axially move in a first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction.
Yoshida teaches a motor (63) coupled to the screw shaft (61, 62), wherein the motor is configured to rotationally drive the screw shaft (61, 62) and cause the screw shaft and the piston (59) to axially move in a first direction ( direction of arrow A in Figs. 8 and 10) and a second direction (direction of arrow B in Fig. 9) opposite the first direction. (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a motor coupled to the screw shaft, wherein the motor is configured to rotationally drive the screw shaft and cause the screw shaft and the piston to axially move in a first direction and a second direction opposite the first direction; because Yoshida teaches this enables servo motor to control the start and stop in synchronism with opening and closing of the paint valve. (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
Regarding claim 8, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach when the screw shaft and the piston move in the first direction, the paint tank device supplies the paint stored in the paint chamber to the rotary atomizing head through the paint flow path; wherein, when the screw shaft and the piston move in the second direction, the paint tank device fills the paint chamber with the paint received from the paint inflow port
Yoshida teaches the screw shaft and the piston move in the first direction ( direction of arrow A in Figs. 8 and 10) , the paint tank device supplies the paint stored in the paint chamber to the rotary atomizing head through the paint flow path; wherein, when the screw shaft and the piston move in the second direction (direction of arrow B in Fig. 9) , the paint tank device fills the paint chamber with the paint received from the paint inflow port. (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the screw shaft and the piston move in the first direction, the paint tank device supplies the paint stored in the paint chamber to the rotary atomizing head through the paint flow path; wherein, when the screw shaft and the piston move in the second direction, the paint tank device fills the paint chamber with the paint received from the paint inflow port; because Yoshida teaches this enables servo motor to control the start and stop in synchronism with opening and closing of the paint valve. (See Yoshida, Abstract, Figs. 8-10, and col. 5, lines 4-20, col. 13, lines 51 to col. 14, line 4; col. 14, lines 38-48; col. 16, lines 53-61; col. 17, lines 62-67; col. 18, line 47, to col. 19, line 4 .)
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) and US Pat. Num. 6,164,651 to Yoshida et al (hereinafter Yoshida) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,375,553 to Donald H. Criss (hereinafter Criss) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20130167971 A1 to Kuniharu Yamauchi (hereinafter Yamauchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 2010243101 A1 to Matsumoto et al (hereinafter Matsumoto) and US Pat. Pub. Num. 20170197224 A1 to Taube et al (hereinafter Taube) and US Pat. Num. 6,164,651 to Yoshida et al (hereinafter Yoshida) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,375,553 to Donald H. Criss (hereinafter Criss).
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi does not explicitly teach a gear assembly comprising: a driving gear coupled to the motor, and a driven gear coupled to the driving gear and the screw shaft, the driven gear comprising an inner peripheral side engaging the screw shaft; wherein the motor is configured to rotationally drive the gear assembly to cause the screw shaft and the piston to axially move in the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction.
Criss teaches the use of a motor to actuate a shaft to dispense a material.
Criss teaches a gear assembly comprising: a driving gear (33) coupled to the motor (40), and a driven gear (36) coupled to the driving gear and the screw shaft (34, 42), the driven gear (36) comprising an inner peripheral side engaging the screw shaft (34,42) ; wherein the motor (40) is configured to rotationally drive the gear assembly to cause the screw shaft (34, 42) and the piston (44) to axially move in the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction. (See Criss, Abstract, Fig. 1, and col. 2, lines 48- col. 3, col. 7, lines 7-17, 68-74; and col. 5, lines 1-20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gear assembly comprising: a driving gear coupled to the motor, and a driven gear coupled to the driving gear and the screw shaft, the driven gear comprising an inner peripheral side engaging the screw shaft; wherein the motor is configured to rotationally drive the gear assembly to cause the screw shaft and the piston to axially move in the first direction and the second direction opposite the first direction because Criss teaches this structure enables the material to be dispensed. (See Criss, Abstract, Fig. 1, and col. 3, lines 14-24; col. 7, lines 7-17, 68-74; and col. 5, lines 1-20.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US Pat. Pub. Num. 20170197224 A1 to Taube et al (hereinafter Taube) is being used to address the new limitation added to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20190299235 A1 to Taube and Schweizer teach paint supply houses fluid connected to the paint color change valve module and controller which receives signals to communicate with other components such as circulating pump to supply paint at the appropriate time i.e. once connection is made. (See Taube and Schweizer, paragraphs 52, 63, 108, 114, and Fig. 5 .)
US Pat. Num. 5,240,745 to Yamamoto teaches when a vehicle is to be coated the line master controller issues a start signal for the painting line and paint color data is sent to a transmission register in synchronism to the stage master controllers 412a through 412c. (See Yamamoto, col. 21, lines 26-50.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights