Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 7, 9, and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15, and 20 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 Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn.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.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is being with respect to claim 11 is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 11.
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) are withdrawn based on the submission of Replacement Drawings deleting reference numerals.
Specification
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn based on the amendment to the specification.
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 and 15 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. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 9.
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. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) .
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 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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate.
Kizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Kizek 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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate (17). (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, paragraphs 47, 55. )
(Examiner is considering the door in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent to a roller gate, a sliding gate, or a lifting gate.)
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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate ; because Kizek teaches the use of this structure allows access to the immersion chamber. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 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 Kizek 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 Kizek 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 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. Iglauer in view of Herre 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 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 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 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 and wherein the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening.
Kizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Kizek 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 and wherein the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 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 and wherein the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening; because Kizek teaches the use of this structure allows access to the immersion chamber. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 Kizek 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 Kizek 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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 7 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. 20090038707 A1 to Gaon et al (hereinafter Gaon) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
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. 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) 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 US Pat. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 201000047465 A1 to Ansorge et al (hereinafter Ansorge) is being maintained.
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 9 and 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) 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 9.
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. 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) 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. 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. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 11 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. Num. 3,960,108 A1 to Ichigo et al (hereinafter Ichigo) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 11.
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. 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) 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. 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. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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. 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 13 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 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 Kizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 14 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 further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff).
Regarding claim 14, Iglauer does not explicitly teach the enclosure can be flooded.
Midkiff teaches the enclosure can be flooded at least in part of a maximum spatial height of the enclosure and/or of the treatment chamber. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42.)
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 that can be flooded; because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle and capable of being closed water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level in order to perform a treatment on the vehicle in an art recognized equivalent station in an installation for treating vehicles. (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).
Claim 14 recites an intended use clause (i. e. “can be flooded”). 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 Kizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations
The previous rejection of claim 1 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 20 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek).
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 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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate.
Kizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Kizek 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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate (17). (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, paragraphs 47, 55. )
(Examiner is considering the door in Midkiff to be an art recognized equivalent to a roller gate, a sliding gate, or a lifting gate.)
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 and wherein the closing device includes a roller gate, a sliding gate or a lifting gate ; because Kizek teaches the use of this structure allows access to the immersion chamber. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 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 Kizek 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 Kizek 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 Kizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
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 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 wherein the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening.
Kizek is directed to an installation for coating vehicles.
Kizek 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 and wherein the closing device (17) is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 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 and wherein the closing device is configured to move in a substantially vertical direction to open and close the access opening; because Kizek teaches the use of this structure allows access to the immersion chamber. (See Kizek, Abstract, Fig. 3a to 3e, 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 Herre and Kizek 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 Herre and Kizek is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitations.
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. 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. 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of 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, 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 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. Iglauer in view of Herre 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 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 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 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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 7 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. 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. 20090038707 A1 to Gaon et al (hereinafter Gaon) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 claims 9 and 14 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) as applied to claim 1 and further 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 9 and the amendment to claim 1.
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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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 11 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. Num. 3,960,108 A1 to Ichigo et al (hereinafter Ichigo) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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. 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) 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff) as applied to claim 1 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 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. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) 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.
Claim 14 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. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 7,980,258 B1 to David G. Midkiff (hereinafter Midkiff).
Regarding claim 14, Burkart does not explicitly teach the enclosure can be flooded.
Midkiff teaches the enclosure can be flooded at least in part of a maximum spatial height of the enclosure and/or of the treatment chamber. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42.)
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 that can be flooded; because Midkiff teaches the use of this structure allows the treatment chamber to be opened to receive the vehicle and capable of being closed water tight once the vehicle is inside so that the water level can reach the appropriate level in order to perform a treatment on the vehicle in an art recognized equivalent station in an installation for treating vehicles. (See Midkiff, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 27-47; col. 3, lines 46-64; col. 4, lines 5-20, 35-42. )
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 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. US Pat. Pub. No. 20090229608 A1 to Josef Kizek et al (hereinafter Kizek) is being used to address the limitations added to claim 1 and new claim 20.
Conclusion
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