DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 15-16 and 19 in the reply filed on October 23, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the action fails to its burden the species are independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive, however, for purposes of compact prosecution, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed such as including the feature of air bubble removal.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses 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:
valve control means in claim 1;
air bubble removal means in claim 1;
pump control means in claims 7-8 and 15-20;
determination means in claims 7-8 and 15-20;
notification means in claims 7-8 and 15-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the part of the robot arm" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as previous the recitation is the stable part of the robot arm. As the robot arm is made of a plurality of parts, it is unclear if the phrase of the part of the robot arm should refer back to the stable part of the robot arm or another part of the robot arm. For purposes of compact prosecution the phrase is interpreted as the stable part of the robot arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rodrigues (WO2021028983A1, corresponding US 2022/0168769 cited) in view of Stockwell (US 7,118,206)
The applied reference has a common inventor/applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The effective filing date of the instant application is currently September 30, 2022. It is noted the foreign publication of the reference has a date of February 18, 2021 and the foreign application date of the reference has a date of August 9, 2019. It is noted a certified translation of the instant application has not been filed, as this office action.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regards to claim 1, Rodrigues teaches an inkjet coating machine (painting robot) comprising
a robot arm (25) for performing painting on an object to be painted (fig. 14-18; para. 42, 45-46);
a nozzle head unit (50, painting head) mounted at a tip end of the robot arm and comprises a nozzle head (53/54) which provides a plurality of nozzles for ejecting coating material by driving of a piezoelectric substrate (62) (fig. 14-18; para. 61-62, 68);
a coating material supply passage (81c) is connected to a coating material supply side (71c) of the nozzle head unit (fig. 14-18; para. 130-131);
a return passage (82c) connected to a coating material evacuation side (72c) (fig. 14-18; para. 130-131);
a bypass flow passage (803c) is provided in the robot arm and allows for the coating material to flow in parallel to the nozzle head unit (fig. 14-18; para. 137, 141);
switching valves (801c/801d, shutoff valve) is provide at the bypass flow passage to provided flow control through the bypass flow passage (fig. 14-18; para. 137, 141);
an overall control unit (130) and a cleaning control unit (120) controls the switching valves (fig. 14-18; para. 78, 80, 137, 157, 167).
Rodrigues does not explicitly teach
an air bubble removal means is provided in a stable part of the robot arm, an orientation of the stable part of the robot arm does not change and which is provided so as to enable supply of the coating material to the coating material supply passage or the return flow passage and removes air bubbles contained in the coating material.
However, Stockwell teaches dispensing device (14) is connected to supply containers (42a/42b) using umbilicals (52a/52b). Stockwell teaches a gas bubble removal vessels (56A/56B, 400) are provided inline with the umbilicals, near the supply containers and between the dispensing device and the supply containers.
Stockwell teaches the gas bubble removal vessel comprises a vessel (406) that is connected to an actuator (408). Stockwell teaches gas bubbles that accumulate near the top of an interior chamber (430) of the vessel and the actuator opens a check valve (418) to vent gas upwards from the interior chamber of the vessel (fig. 3-4, 7-8; col. 6, lines 45-65, col. 10, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the gas bubble removal vessel of Stockwell onto the coating material supply passage of Rodrigues because Stockwell teaches it will prevent vapor lock and damage to ink jet head orifices (col. 10, lines 15-20).
As Rodrigues teaches the coating material supply passage and paint supply source (92d) are provided on the robot arm (fig. 14-18; para. 158-159), and where Rodrigues in view of Stockwell incorporates the gas bubble removal vessels near the paint supply source and inline with coating material supply passage.
Rodrigues teaches a robot arm (24) is connected pivot arm (23) and the robot arm (25) is connected to a housing (25a), to pivot the robot arm (fig. 1, 14-18; para. 42-46). This arrangement maintains the horizontal orientation of the robot arm (24) and the robot arm (25).
Rodrigues in view of Stockwell allows for the gas bubble removal vessels to be maintained in an upright position, in order to vent gas upwards the vessel.
In regards to claim 2, Rodrigues and Stockwell as discussed, where Stockwell teaches the gas bubble removal vessels comprises
the vessel (406, tank main body) stores the liquid material (fig. 4-8; col. 8, line 65- col. 9, line 10, col. 9, lines 50-67);
an evacuation port is provided at a check valve (418) for evacuating gas from the vessel, the check valve is provided in an area above the vessel (fig. 7-8; col. 10, lines 1-15);
an exit/outflow port (420) provided at a lower portion of the vessel and allows the liquid material to flow out of the vessel (fig. 7-8; col. 9, lines 10-25).
In regards to claims 3-4, Rodrigues and Stockwell as discussed, where Stockwell teaches the evacuation port comprises the check valve (418, control valve, air evacuation valve) which is opened based on a signal (fig. 7-8; col. 10, lines 1-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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 at 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717