DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, 27-28, 30, 32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walmer (US 2010/0127100) in view of Smith (US 6,547,158), Nonemaker (US 5,275,504), Shah (US 2019/0033898) and Rindi (US 2013/0312536).
In regards to claims 14, 20, 30 and 32, Walmer teaches an apparatus for applying paint and reflective glass beads to a surface, the apparatus comprising:
a paint reservoir (32, liquid reservoir) (fig. 1-2; para. 16, 18);
a spray head (36) provides a spray outlet (fig. 1-2; para. 16, 18);
a paint pump (34) is fluidly connected to the paint reservoir to apply paint from the paint reservoir and through the spray outlet of the spray head (fig. 1-2; para. 16, 18);
an air reservoir (16, functional equivalent to claimed compressor) provides a flow of compressed/pressurized air (fig. 1-2; para. 17-18);
a bead reservoir (14, hopper) supplies a flow beads (fig. 1-2; para. 17-18);
a bead dispensing nozzle(s) connected to the bead reservoir by way of bead tubing (24) (fig. 1-2; para. 17).
Walmer does not explicitly teach an compressor which supplies air to the bead reservoir/hopper so that a flow of compressed air to flow the bead out of the bead reservoir/hopper.
However, Smith teaches an air compressor (52) is connected to a container (14, bead hopper) and supplies pressurized air to cause a flow of glass spheres (46, beads) to move from the container to a spray gun (50, bead dispenser) (fig. 1-4; col. 2, lines 30-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the air compressor and container of Smith onto the air reservoir and the bead reservoir/hopper of Walmer because Smith teaches it allows for applying reflective glass bead pattern to a two component external mix line striping pattern utilizing a minimum number of operators (col. 1, line 40-45) .
Walmer and Smith as discussed, but do not explicitly teach a bead flow sensor module positioned along the flow pathway, bead flow sensor module is adjacent to the bead dispenser and the bead flow sensor module comprising: a sensor that outputs a signal proportional to bead flow through the bead flow sensor module.
However, Nonemaker teaches an infrared sensor (10, bead flow sensor module) is connected to glass gun-12 to monitor the flow of reflective beads (fig. 1-3; col. 2, lines 45-68). Nonemaker teaches an infrared sensor is positioned closer/adjacent to the glass gun-12 that the source of beads (fig. 1-2: col. 2, lines 55-65).
Nonemaker teaches the infrared sensor is connected to a junction box (42) and a monitor box (44) where the infrared sensor provides a signal indicating an interruption in flow of glass beads which provides for the signal that is proportional to bead flow through the infrared sensor (fig. 1-3; col. 3, lines 40-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the infrared sensor, junction box and monitor box of Nonemaker onto the apparatus of Walmer and Smith because Nonemaker teaches it will ensure the supply bead through and out of the glass gun (col. 2, lines 10-25).
Walmer, Smith and Nonemaker as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the bead flow sensor module comprises: a housing having a flow channel fluidly connected to the flow pathway; and a beam supported by the housing that extends from the housing into the flow channel, wherein the signal is indicative of bead impact on the beam, the signal is proportional to a degree of deflection of the beam that varies with bead flow.
However, Shah teaches a solids detector (40) which is used to monitor a flow rate of a fluid (fig. 4-5; para. 46). Shah teaches the solids detector comprises housing (84) comprising a flow channel which mounts onto a conduit (82) using fasteners (86, mount). Shah teaches a receptor (88, beam) extends into the flow of fluid, where a sensor (98) is connected to the beam to convert impact energy to electrical signals (fig. 4-5; para. 63-66).
Shah teaches receptor connected to the sensor, converts impact energy which is capable of being mechanical waves, stress/strain waves, or vibrations, into electrical signals (para. 65-66). The mechanical waves, stress/strain waves or vibrations corresponds to a degree of deflection of the receptor as forming of waves or vibrations require movement/deflection in some amount.
Shah teaches the electrical signal varies and is proportional to the impact from solid particles in the fluid and is used to determine flow rate of the solid particles (para. 66, 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the solids detector of Shah onto the infrared sensor of Walmer, Smith and Nonemaker because Shah teaches it provides it will allow detection of small impact forces and be resistant to abrasion by the particles flowing in the fluid (para. 67).
Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker and Shah as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the bead flow sensor module a side channel that branches from and fluidically connects with the flow channel, a mount removably engaging the housing and a head engaging the mount that seals the side channel and forms a dead end opposite the flow channel.
However, Rindi teaches a flow rate sensor (10) comprising hollow container body (20) provides a housing which contains a probe (40) (fig. 1-5, 15; para. 91, 93). Rindi teaches the hollow container body comprises a portion-23 which provides a side channel that branches from and fluidically connects with the fluid (4) flow in duct (1) (flow channel) (fig. 1-5, 15; para. 119-120).
Rindi teaches the portion-23 connects with a dividing wall (21), where the dividing wall seals the side channel and forms a dead end opposite the flow channel (fig. 4-5; para. 92, 95-96, 120). Rindi teaches the flow rate sensor is removably mounted onto the duct using a support (71) and a collar (72) (fig. 15; para. 122-124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the container body and mounting of the flow rate sensor of Rindi onto the sensor of Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker and Shah because Rindi teaches it will allow for quick installation and a sensor that resilient (para. 14, 18-19).
In regards to claim 16, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Walmer in view of Smith teach, the paint reservoir, the paint pump and the air compressor are provided on a surface of a vehicle chassis (50) (Walmer-fig. 2; para. 18; Smith-fig. 1).
In regards to claim 17, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Walmer teaches the paint spray head is positioned in front of the spray bead dispensing nozzle(s) to provide spray bead dispensing nozzle to pass over the paint applied by the paint spray head (fig. 2; para. 16, 18).
In regards to claim 18, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Walmer teaches the bead tubing (24) provides a pathway that connects the bead reservoir and the bead dispensing nozzle (fig. 1; para. 17).
In regards to claim 22, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Shah teaches the sensor is mounted onto the receptor (beam) (fig. 4-5).
In regards to claim 23, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Shah teaches the sensor is position on an upstream side of the receptor (beam) (fig. 4-5).
In regards to claims 24-25, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Shah teaches the receptor extends into the flow channel and partially outside the flow channel into the housing (fig. 4-5). Rindi further teaches the probe extends from the interior of the portion-23 of the hollow container body and into the duct (fig. 1-5, 15).
In regards to claims 27-28, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, where Shah teaches the receptor extends within the flow channel, through the opening of the housing, where the opening perimeter provides a ledge through which the receptor extends into the flow channel (fig. 4-5).
In regards to claim 33, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed above, where Nonemaker teaches the use of two glass guns-12, and each have the infrared sensor.
Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi teach the solids detector of Shah is incorporated onto the infrared sensor of Walmer, Smith and Nonemaker, where each of the two glass guns-12 will incorporate the solid detector as discussed above.
Therefore, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi teach the claimed plurality of bead dispensers; a plurality of flow pathways, each flow pathway of the plurality of flow pathways extends between the bead hopper and one of the plurality of bead dispensers; and a plurality of bead flow sensor modules, each bead flow sensor module of the plurality of bead flow sensor modules positioned along one of the plurality of flow pathways, and each bead flow sensor module comprising: a housing having a flow channel forming a portion of one of the flow pathways; a beam that extends into the flow channel; and a sensor that outputs a signal proportional to a degree of movement of the beam that varies with of bead flow through the bead flow sensor module; and where at least one of the bead flow sensor modules is closer/adjacent to the bead dispenser than the bead hopper along the flow pathway.
In regards to claim 35, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed above, where Rindi teaches the hollow container body comprising theportion-23 that provides the side channel that is oriented orthogonal to the duct (1) (flow channel) (fig. 1-5, 15).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as applied to claims 14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, 24-28, 30, 32-33 and 35 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2014/0020480).
In regards to claim 29, Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi as discussed, but do not explicitly teach one or more fasteners that secure the beam to the housing.
However, Schmidt teaches a sensor that uses bolts-78 with blocks-75 which are used to secure a probe-60 with the sensor housing-52 (fig. 7; para. 49-50, 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of fasteners to secure elements of Schmidt onto the receptor and housing of Walmer, Smith, Nonemaker, Shah and Rindi because Schmidt teaches it will ensure accurate readings (para. 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
The tubular portion 23 disclosed by Rindi does not teach or suggest "a side channel formed by the housing"
It is unclear from the disclosure of Rindi whether the interior of tubular portion 23 communicates with the interior of the pipe at all. While FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 of Rindi appear to show an open-ended tubular portion 23, Rindi describes portions 23 and 24 as having "substantially equal transverse sections, in order to assist a mutual aligning along common axis 11, which makes it possible to mount the instrument in a fluid-tight device comprising a housing that is tubular as well" (Rindi p119, emphasis added). "The closed tubular shape of first part 20' of hollow container body 20 extends within duct 1 to create a quiet zone, whereby only the engagement portion 40 is affected by the fluid dynamic thrust of fluid 4" (Rindi p121)
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Rindi does teach the hollow container body (20) defines a housing which is formed by the tubular portion-24 and tubular portion-23. The interior of the tubular portion-23 extends upwards from the duct and provides the claimed side channel formed by the housing. The perspective is supported by the movement of the probe (40) shown in fig. 3, along with the dividing wall (21) which provides a fluid separation between a first part 20' (tubular portion-23) and second part 20'' (tubular portion-24) (para. 92, 95). The use of the dividing wall (21) and the movement shown, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the tubular portion-23/first part 20' the interior of the tubular portion-23/first part 20' is fluidly connected to the flow within in the duct.
In addition to the discussion above, Rindi does teach an end portion-48 of the probe (40) and a hood (46) is adapted to firmly and fluid-tightly engage probe 48 to block fluid 4 (para. 105). This discussion would inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the interior of the tubular portion-23 is fluidly connected to the flow within in the duct.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights