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
Applicant’s submission on June 23, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 6, and 20 were amended. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 14 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 were added. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 20-23 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph 167 was submitted to amend address an objection. Replacement Figures 5-6 were added to remove reference numerals 153, 155 to Replacement Figures 5-6.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
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: “conveying device” ; “application device” in claim 1 ; “application units” in claim 4; and “movement device” in claim 5.
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.
As set forth previously, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim interpretation is not persuasive. Under current USPTO practice, “means plus function” is not limited to cases that including “means for” language. Additionally, terms such as “device” and “units” are considered generic placeholders and are not considered to “connote definite structure” under current USPTO practice.
As stated previously, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1. ( The previous heading included typos in the patent publication number and inventor name for the third reference. The correct patent number and inventor name appears above and the correct information for this reference was also provided in the PTO-892 Form in the 3-24-2026 Office Action. .)
Claims 1-6, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) .
Regarding claim 1, Iglauer teaches a treatment system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies (104), wherein the treatment system comprising: - an enclosure (108) which surrounds a treatment chamber (110) ; - a conveying device (114) , by which at least one workpiece (104) can be introduced into the treatment chamber (110) and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. (See Iglauer, Abstract, Figs. 1 -10, and paragraphs 5-6, 318, 323, 344.)
Iglauer does not explicitly teach an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies.
Herre is directed to a coating installation. (See Herre, Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 10, 22-25, 43, 55, 61, 72, 98, 113-115, and 133.)
Herre teaches an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
Herre specifically teaches a treatment station includes not only painting stations or booths but also, drying stations, stations where the coatings objects are cleaned. (See Herre, paragraph 10).
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 include an application device for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece; with a reasonableexpectation of success; because Herre teaches the use of application device in different treatment stations provides for the advantageous distribution of the coating workpieces between different branches. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Iglauer does not explicitly teach an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion.
Midkiff is directed to coating installation for cleaning vehicles.
Midkiff teaches an enclosure (area extending from external side of 23 on left to external side of 23 on right in Fig. 1) which surrounds a treatment chamber (interior of 20), wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece (11) by immersion. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the treatment
chamber includes a closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening,
through which the at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber
and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment
chamber.
Midkiff teaches the treatment chamber includes a closing device for partially or
completely closing an access opening, through which the at least one workpiece can be
introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece
can be discharged from the treatment chamber (end walls 22, 23 with hinges). (See
Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 treatment chamber includes a
closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening, through which the
at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment chamber, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Iglauer in view of Herre and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be introduced …and/ or discharged”). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles.
Herre teaches the application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units (42, 43) including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69,134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 3, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece (40) can be received at a given time, it preferably being provided that the workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber by the conveying device, in an insertion direction (direction along bottom transport path 2 in Fig. 6) , and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction(direction along upper transport path 2 in Fig. 6). (See Herre, Abstract, Figs.3- 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 3 recites an intended use clause (i. e. can be received; can be discharged). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Iglauer does not explicitly teach application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is provided on a plurality of sides with application units of the application device (42, 43). (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 5, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the workpiece is movable in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device.
Herre teaches the workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device (42, 43) (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 6, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units.
Herre teaches the first and second painting robot are located in a position to enable coating to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units; because Herre teaches the application units in these positions allows paint to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 6 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “is movable”). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the treatment is or includes a cleaning.
Herre teaches the treatment is or includes a cleaning. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment is or includes a cleaning; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 23, Iglauer teaches wherein the enclosure (108) exhibits a cuboid shape. (See Iglauer, Abstract, Figs. 1 -10, and paragraphs 5-6, 318, 323, 344.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek).
Regarding claim 20, Iglauer teaches a treatment system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies (104), wherein the treatment system comprising: - an enclosure (108) which surrounds a treatment chamber (110) ; - a conveying device (114) , by which at least one workpiece (104) can be introduced into the treatment chamber (110) and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. (See Iglauer, Abstract, Figs. 1 -10, and paragraphs 5-6, 318, 323, 344)
Iglauer does not explicitly teach an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies.
Herre is directed to a coating installation. (See Herre, Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 10, 22-25, 43, 55, 61, 72, 98, 113-115, and 133.)
Herre teaches an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
Herre specifically teaches a treatment station includes not only painting stations or booths but also, drying stations, stations where the coatings objects are cleaned. (See Herre, paragraph 10).
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 include an application device for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece; with a reasonableexpectation of success; because Herre teaches the use of application device in different treatment stations provides for the advantageous distribution of the coating workpieces between different branches. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153.)
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Iglauer does not explicitly teach an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion.
Midkiff is directed to coating installation for cleaning vehicles.
Midkiff teaches an enclosure (area extending from external side of 23 on left to external side of 23 on right in Fig. 1) which surrounds a treatment chamber (interior of 20), wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece (11) by immersion. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the treatment
chamber includes a closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening,
through which the at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber
and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment
chamber.
Midkiff teaches the treatment chamber includes a closing device for partially or
completely closing an access opening, through which the at least one workpiece can be
introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece
can be discharged from the treatment chamber (end walls 22, 23 with hinges). (See
Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 treatment chamber includes a
closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening, through which the
at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment chamber, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Iglauer does not explicitly teach closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening.
Krizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Krizek teaches the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening. ( See Krizek, Abstract, Figs. 3a to 3e, and paragraphs 47, 55.)
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 closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening, because Krizek teaches the use of this structure is effective for allowing access to the immersion chamber. ( See Krizek, Abstract, Figs. 3a to 3e, and paragraphs 47, 55.)
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).
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 20 (system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Iglauer in view of Herre and Krizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 20 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be introduced …and/ or discharged”). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Krizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 200900320753 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff )as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 200900320753 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino).
Regarding claim 6, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units.
Yoshino is directed to a painting system.
Yoshino teaches the first and second painting robot are located to be in a position symmetric to the center point of the vehicle. (See Yoshino, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 10-11, 14, 31, 33, 39, 41, 51, 53, 65.)
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 application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units; because Yoshino teaches the robots can be located in a position relative to the substrate to provide efficiency and convenience. (See Yoshino, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 10-11, 14, 31, 33, 39, 41, 51, 53, 65.)
Claim 6 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “is movable”). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201000047465 A1 to Ansorge et al (hereinafter Ansorge) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201000047465 A1 to Ansorge et al (hereinafter Ansorge).
Regarding claim 8, Iglauer does not explicitly teach an acceleration of a relative movement is adjustable.
Ansorge is directed to a paint shop for motor vehicle components or vehicle bodies.
Ansorge teaches conveying speed can be adjusted as a function of process parameters. (See Ansorge, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 14, 31, and 37. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an acceleration of a relative movement is adjustable, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper acceleration for the particular process parameter, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal adjustment for the conveying speed to optimize different process parameter (i.e. type of paint, type of component, open time, processing time, dry time, cure time, etc. ). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Ansorge, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 14, 31, and 37. )
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160082461 A1 to Udo Wolf (hereinafter Wolf) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160082461 A1 to Udo Wolf (hereinafter Wolf).
Regarding claim 10, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary.
Wolf is directed to coating installation.
Wolf teaches the conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary, in particular fixed, in order to carry out a treatment, preferably by the conveying device and/or an additional fixing device. (See Wolf, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 11, 34, and 37. )
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 conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary; because Wolf teaches the use of stop-start conveyor allows the atomizer to paint in one pass without interruption or cessation which optimizes the painting result. (See Wolf, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 11, 34, and 37. )
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201800178373 A1 to Schreiner (hereinafter Shreiner) is being maintained.
Claim 12 is rejected US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201800178373 A1 to Schreiner (hereinafter Shreiner).
Regarding claim 12, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged.
Shreiner is directed to coating installation.
Shreiner teaches the treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged. (See Schreiner, Abstract, Figs. 2, 8, 10 col. 6, and paragraph 54. )
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 treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged; because Shreiner teaches the use of overspray system allows the overspray to be received beneath the painting booth . (See Schreiner, Abstract, Figs. 2, 8, 10 col. 6, and paragraph 54. )
Claim 12 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be discharged ”). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Schreiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190184946 A1 to Friederich et al (hereinafter Friederich) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190184946 A1 to Friederich et al (hereinafter Friederich)
Regarding claim 13, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece.
Friederich is directed to an coating installation.
Friederich teaches the application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece. (See Friederich, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 121. )
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 application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece; because Friederich teaches a lance is known piece of equipment for treating the interior of vehicles. (See Friederich, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 121. )
Claim 13 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be inserted” or “can be applied” ). 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. Iglauer in view of Herre and Friederich and Krizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 14.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170073167 A1 to Ookada et al (hereinafter Ookada).
Regarding claim 21, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece.
Ookada is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Ookada teaches the enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece. ( See Ookada, Abstract, Figs. 6-11, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
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 enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece, because Ookada teaches this would enable the substrate to be immersed at the desired level to receive the desired treatment ( See Ookada, Abstract, Figs. 6-11, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180259262 A1 to Iglauer et al (hereinafter Iglauer) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of DE 19942838 C2 to Klimkewitz et al (hereinafter Klimkewitz).
Regarding claim 22, Iglauer does not explicitly teach a flood tube that extends vertically..
Klimkewitz is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Klimkewitz teaches a flood tube that extends vertically. ( See Klimkewitz, Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
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 flood tube that extends vertically, because Klimkewitz teaches this structure would enable the bath to have the desired flow properties. ( See Klimkewitz, Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
( The previous heading included typos in the patent publication number and inventor name for the third reference. The correct patent number and inventor name appears above and the correct information for this reference was also provided in the PTO-892 Form in the 3-24-2026 Office Action.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ).
Regarding claim 1, Burkart teaches a treatment system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies (12 ,14), wherein the treatment system comprising: - an enclosure (10) which surrounds a treatment chamber (30, 32) ; - a conveying device (40) , by which at least one workpiece (12, 14) can be introduced into the treatment chamber (30, 32) and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. (See Burkart, Abstract, Figs. 1 -10, and paragraphs 2, 8-10, 90-94, and 109)
Burkart does not explicitly teach an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies in the same embodiment.
Ohta is directed to a coating installation. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Ohta teaches an application device (111C) for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-5, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to include an application device for applying fluid for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies; with a reasonable expectation of success; because Ohta teaches the use of application device to provided to the desired position and provide the coating. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Burkart does not explicitly teach an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion.
Midkiff is directed to coating installation for cleaning vehicles.
Midkiff teaches an enclosure (area extending from external side of 23 on left to external side of 23 on right in Fig. 1) which surrounds a treatment chamber (interior of 20), wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece (11) by immersion. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment
chamber includes a closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening,
through which the at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber
and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment
chamber.
Midkiff teaches the treatment chamber includes a closing device for partially or
completely closing an access opening, through which the at least one workpiece can be
introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece
can be discharged from the treatment chamber (end walls 22, 23 with hinges). (See
Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 treatment chamber includes a
closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening, through which the
at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment chamber, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
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).
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be introduced …and/ or discharged”). 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. Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Burkart teaches wherein the enclosure (10) exhibits a cuboid shape. (See Burkart, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, and 11.)
The previous rejection of claims 2-6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 2-6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre).
Regarding claim 2, Burkart does not explicitly teach the application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles.
Herre teaches the application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units (42, 43) including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application device includes one or more application units for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the one or more application units including spray nozzles and/or atomizing nozzles or being designed as spray nozzles and/or as atomizing nozzles; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69,134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 3, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece (40) can be received at a given time, it preferably being provided that the workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber by the conveying device, in an insertion direction (direction along bottom transport path 2 in Fig. 6) , and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction(direction along upper transport path 2 in Fig. 6). (See Herre, Abstract, Figs.3- 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 3 recites an intended use clause (i. e. can be received; can be discharged). 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. Burkart in view of Ohta and Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Burkart does not explicitly teach application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is provided on a plurality of sides with application units of the application device (42, 43). (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 5, Burkart does not explicitly teach the workpiece is movable in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device.
Herre teaches the workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device (42, 43) (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 6, Burkart does not explicitly teach the application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units.
Herre teaches the first and second painting robot are located in a position to enable coating to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units; because Herre teaches the application units in these positions allows paint to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 6 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “is movable”). 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. Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff and further in view of Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment is or includes a cleaning.
Herre teaches the treatment is or includes a cleaning. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment is or includes a cleaning; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 3, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece (40) can be received at a given time, it preferably being provided that the workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber by the conveying device, in an insertion direction (direction along bottom transport path 2 in Fig. 6) , and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction(direction along upper transport path 2 in Fig. 6). (See Herre, Abstract, Figs.3- 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment chamber is a single space in which only a single workpiece can be received at a given time in an insertion direction, and can be discharged from the treatment chamber counter to the insertion direction; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 3 recites an intended use clause (i. e. can be received; can be dicharged). 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. Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff and Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Burkart does not explicitly teach application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber.
Herre teaches the treatment chamber is provided on a plurality of sides with application units of the application device (42, 43). (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units of the application device are provided on a plurality of sides of the treatment chamber; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 5, Burkart does not explicitly teach the workpiece is movable in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device.
Herre teaches the workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device (42, 43) (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 workpiece is movable, in particular linearly displaceable, in the treatment chamber by the conveying device or a movement device, relative to the application units of the application device; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Regarding claim 6, Burkart does not explicitly teach the application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units.
Herre teaches the first and second painting robot are located in a position to enable coating to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
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 application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units; because Herre teaches the application units in these positions allows paint to be applied to the surface of the vehicle. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
Claim 6 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “is movable”). 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. Burkart in view of Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment is or includes a cleaning.
Herre teaches the treatment is or includes a cleaning. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 39, 134-135, and 153. )
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 treatment is or includes a cleaning; because Herre teaches the use of application device would allow paint to be applied to the surface of the workpieces. (See Herre, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 3-4, 7, 14-15, 19, 27-29, 39, 68-69, 134-135, and 153. )
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 200900320753 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 200900320753 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino).
Regarding claim 6, Burkart does not explicitly teach the application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units.
Yoshino is directed to a painting system.
Yoshino teaches the first and second painting robot are located to be in a position symmetric to the center point of the vehicle. (See Yoshino, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 10-11, 14, 31, 33, 39, 41, 51, 53, 65.)
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 application units are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber, and wherein the workpiece is movable relative to the application units by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units; because Yoshino teaches the robots can be located in a position relative to the substrate to provide efficiency and convenience. (See Yoshino, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 10-11, 14, 31, 33, 39, 41, 51, 53, 65.)
Claim 6 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “is movable”). 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. Burkart in view of Herre is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201000047465 A1 to Ansorge et al (hereinafter Ansorge) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090117283 A1 to Herre et al (hereinafter Herre) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201000047465 A1 to Ansorge et al (hereinafter Ansorge).
Regarding claim 8, Burkart does not explicitly teach an acceleration of a relative movement is adjustable.
Ansorge is directed to a paint shop for motor vehicle components or vehicle bodies.
Ansorge teaches conveying speed can be adjusted as a function of process parameters. (See Ansorge, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 14, 31, and 37. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an acceleration of a relative movement is adjustable, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper acceleration for the particular process parameter, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal adjustment for the conveying speed to optimize different process parameter (i.e. type of paint, type of component, open time, processing time, dry time, cure time, etc. ). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)). (See Ansorge, Abstract, Fig. 8, paragraphs 14, 31, and 37. )
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160082461 A1 to Udo Wolf (hereinafter Wolf) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160082461 A1 to Udo Wolf (hereinafter Wolf).
Regarding claim 10, Burkart does not explicitly teach the conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary.
Wolf is directed to coating installation.
Wolf teaches the conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary, in particular fixed, in order to carry out a treatment, preferably by the conveying device and/or an additional fixing device. (See Wolf, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 11, 34, and 37. )
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 conveying device is a clocked conveying device, and wherein the at least one workpiece is spatially stationary; because Wolf teaches the use of stop-start conveyor allows the atomizer to paint in one pass without interruption or cessation which optimizes the painting result. (See Wolf, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 11, 34, and 37. )
The previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201800178373 A1 to Schreiner (hereinafter Shreiner) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201800178373 A1 to Schreiner (hereinafter Shreiner).
Regarding claim 12, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged.
Shreiner is directed to coating installation.
Shreiner teaches the treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged. (See Schreiner, Abstract, Figs. 2, 8, 10 col. 6, and paragraph 54. )
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 treatment system includes a discharge tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and into which fluid applied to the at least one workpiece can be discharged; because Shreiner teaches the use of overspray system allows the overspray to be received beneath the painting booth . (See Schreiner, Abstract, Figs. 2, 8, 10 col. 6, and paragraph 54. )
Claim 12 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be discharged ”). 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. Burkart in view of Herre and Schreiner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190184946 A1 to Friederich et al (hereinafter Friederich) is withdrawn.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190184946 A1 to Friederich et al (hereinafter Friederich).
Regarding claim 13, Burkart does not explicitly teach the application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece.
Friederich is directed to coating installation.
Friederich teaches the application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece. (See Friederich, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 121. )
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 application device includes at least one application unit, which can be inserted or projects into an interior of the at least one workpiece and by which fluid can be applied to surfaces of the at least one workpiece facing the interior of the at least one workpiece; because Friederich teaches a lance is known piece of equipment for treating the interior of vehicles. (See Friederich, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 121. )
Claim 13 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be inserted” or “can be applied” ). 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. Burkart in view of Herre and Friederich is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 14.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20080229608 A1 to Josef Krizek et al (hereinafter Krizek).
Regarding claim 20, Burkart teaches a treatment system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies (12 ,14), wherein the treatment system comprising: - an enclosure (10) which surrounds a treatment chamber (30, 32) ; - a conveying device (40) , by which at least one workpiece (12, 14) can be introduced into the treatment chamber (30, 32) and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. (See Burkart, Abstract, Figs. 1 -10, and paragraphs 2, 8-10, 90-94, and 109)
Burkart does not explicitly teach an application device for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies in the same embodiment.
Ohta is directed to a coating installation. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Ohta teaches an application device (111C) for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-5, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to include an application device for applying fluid for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies; with a reasonable expectation of success; because Ohta teaches the use of application device to provided to the desired position and provide the coating. (See Ohta, Figs. 1-8, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 7, 38, 41, 76, 91-93, 115,151.)
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Burkart does not explicitly teach an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion.
Midkiff is directed to coating installation for cleaning vehicles.
Midkiff teaches an enclosure (area extending from external side of 23 on left to external side of 23 on right in Fig. 1) which surrounds a treatment chamber (interior of 20), wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece (11) by immersion. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 an enclosure which surrounds a treatment chamber, wherein the enclosure is configured to be at least partially floodable with a liquid to perform a fluid treatment on at least one workpiece by immersion, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Burkart does not explicitly teach the treatment
chamber includes a closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening,
through which the at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber
and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment
chamber.
Midkiff teaches the treatment chamber includes a closing device for partially or
completely closing an access opening, through which the at least one workpiece can be
introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece
can be discharged from the treatment chamber (end walls 22, 23 with hinges). (See
Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. ) (Examiner is considering the chamber in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent chamber in a treatment installation for vehicles.)
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 treatment chamber includes a
closing device for partially or completely closing an access opening, through which the
at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or through which the at least one workpiece can be discharged from the treatment chamber, because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle close and capable of being water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Additionally, regarding claim 20, Burkart does not explicitly teach closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening.
Krizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Krizek teaches the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening. ( See Krizek, Abstract, Figs. 3a to 3e, and paragraphs 47, 55.)
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 closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening, because Krizek teaches the use of this structure is effective for allowing access to the immersion chamber. ( See Krizek, Abstract, Figs. 3a to 3e, and paragraphs 47, 55.)
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).
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 20 (system for performing a fluid treatment on car bodies). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff and Krizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 20 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be introduced …and/ or discharged”). 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. Burkart in view of Ohta and Midkiff and Krizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170073167 A1 to Ookada et al (hereinafter Ookada).
Regarding claim 21, Burkart does not explicitly teach the enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece.
Ookada teaches the enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece. ( See Ookada, Abstract, Figs. 6-11, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
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 enclosure is floodable to at least approximately 40% of a height of the at least one workpiece, because Ookada teaches this would enable the substrate to be immersed at the desired level to receive the desired treatment ( See Ookada, Abstract, Figs. 6-11, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. Pub. No. 20200011599 A1 to Burkart et al (hereinafter Burkart) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20160368022 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter Ohta) and US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff ) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of DE 19942838 C2 to Klimkewitz et al (hereinafter Klimkewitz).
Regarding claim 22, Burkart does not explicitly teach a flood tube that extends vertically..
Klimkewitz teaches a flood tube that extends vertically. ( See Klimkewitz, Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
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 flood tube that extends vertically, because Klimkewitz teaches this structure would enable the bath to have the desired flow properties. ( See Klimkewitz, Abstract, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 28 and 34.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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