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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19, 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (claim 19) recite(s) “reconstructing coating data based on at least part of the distance data, the orientation data, and the movement data”, which is an evaluation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is not used for any application, much less a particular practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Looking at the other elements of the claim, a server system including a sensor for these parameters are well understood, routine, and conventional within the art. See the prior art rejection below. Receiving spray job parameters including distance data, orientation data and movement data is insignificant extra solution activities (data gathering) and therefore would not amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims do not solve the issues of claim 19 above. In fact, they add more issues (like the comparing step of claim 20, determining steps of claim 23 and 25 etc.) which are either not applied at all or a signal is merely sent which is similar to Parker v Flook and generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 19-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0179081 to Charpie in view of US 2005/0242205 to Jarvis.
Claims 19, 22, 26-29:
Charpie teaches a method for using a spray gun with a sensor (abstract). During operation [0015], the sensor monitors a variety of spraying parameters including distance, angle (i.e., orientation), and velocity/acceleration (i.e., movement) [0012] and compares the sensed parameters to predetermined acceptable values (block 112 analysis, Fig. 2; [0013]). If the sensed parameter is outside the predetermined acceptable range, then the user is alerted by audio and/or visual alarm [0013]. In terms of the claimed server system, the instant specification indicates this is an application on a computer capable of looking up reference values and reconstructing the coating data. Charpie teaches a programmable logic controller or other automated input/output arrangement [0020] that is analogous to the claimed server system. The PLC is an application on a computer that compares inputs to reference values in order to provide an output.
Charpie does not teach reconstructing coating data based on the sensed parameters.
However, Jarvis teaches a method for using a spray gun with a sensor (abstract), wherein the sensor collects data related to the position of the spray gun (i.e., distance, orientation, and movement [0009]) relative to the substrate [0005] and then renders this information into an image of visual representation of the coating (i.e., reconstructs coating data) for the user [0032]. The data collection further includes flow rate [0010], temperature, and humidity [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Charpie and use the collected information to produce a visual representation of the coating for the user as in Jarvis. This aids the user, even a skilled operator, to produce a coating of uniform thickness (Jarvis [0002-0004]).
Claim 20:
Charpie teaches the sensor arrangement as a retrofit kit in an embodiment including the sensor and logic controller [0029]. This performs the method as described above. A housing would have been an obvious inclusion for containing the retrofit kit and for ease of installation.
Claim 21:
Charpie teaches a standard spray gun with a housed sensor (280) connected to the spray gun (Fig.3).
Claims 23-25:
Charpie teaches the sensor can take the form of an infrared optical sensor [0012]. It is noted that such a sensor naturally operates by determining the distance based on time between emission and receiving.
Claim 30:
Charpie teaches a step for selecting the coating fluid and configuring the spray gun for the coating fluid (step 102) (Fig. 2). The precise steps for accomplishing this task in an electronic environment includes receiving a coating fluid identifier, looking up reference parameters associated with the coating fluid, retrieving the reference parameters, transmitting the reference parameters to the PLC. Also included are the modules required to accomplish the task.
Claim 31:
Jarvis includes a control module 30 that displays a visual representation of the coating to the operator on display means 32 [0032]. In order to accomplish this task, the controller must receive a user identifier associated with the user of the display means, a sensor kit identifier associated with the particular spray gun used, and the spray data in order to appropriately construct the visual representation and send it to the appropriate display means. Also included are the modules required to accomplish the task.
Response to Arguments
Claim 20 is determined to overcome the 101 rejection for the reasons stated in Applicant’s response dated 7/25/25.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 103 filed 7/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jarvis determines coating thickness by mere subtraction. However, Jarvis states the coating thickness may be determined by calculation from measurements [0010].
Regarding the claim limitations added to claims 20 and 22, the combination does teach alerting the user to make an adjustment to the spray gun and reconstruction of the coating data into an image for the user as discussed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759