DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on December 22, 2025 was received. Claims 9-10, 13, 15, 18-19, 22 and 26-29 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued December 12, 2024.
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 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:
Surface preparation equipment in claims 9 and 18
Clearcoat application equipment in claims 9 and 18
Paint and/or ink removal equipment in claims 15 and 19
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.
A review of the specification indicates that the:
surface preparation equipment includes air blowers, solvent wipes or rags, heating devices and/or robotic devise capable of applying various treatments (par. 21)
clearcoat application equipment includes a heater and/or robotic device (par. 23).
The specification provides no discussion of any paint and/or ink removal equipment related to the paint removal bay.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 15 and 19 were amended to require “paint and/or ink removal equipment” which is not discussed anywhere in the disclosure as filed. The paint removal bay (405) is never stated to have any equipment whatsoever, besides the same types of safety equipment the other bays have (par. 30) which cannot be considered “paint and/or ink removal equipment”. Therefore these limitations are new matter. Claim 16 is rejected as it depends on claim 15.
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 15-16 and 19 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 limitation “paint and/or ink removal equipment” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed above, nothing in the specification mentions any sort of paint and/or ink removal equipment whatsoever. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bausen et al. (US 2010/0304039) in view of Barich et al. (US 6,446,912) and Jang (US 2020/0346238) on claims 9, 11-12, 14-16, 21 and 23-25 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 9 to include subject matter from claim 13, which previously relied upon the Mathis (US 2018/0201029) reference.
Claims 9-16 and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al. in view of Barich et al., Jang and Mathis.
Regarding claim 9: Bausen et al. discloses an aircraft treatment system including a plurality of cabin-like stations including a pretreating station (1), a painting station (2) and a decorating station (3), each station having partition walls (8a-c) where at least the partition wall (8c) between the painting station (2) and decorating station (3) is shared between the two booths. Bausen et al. discloses that the first station prepares the surface of the aircraft part (4), the second station applies a painting including a base coat and a clear coat, which can be considered “application of a livery” (pars. 22-25, figure 1).
Bausen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that all of the stations have common partition walls (8a-c), and fails to explicitly disclose that one station applies the paint and the subsequent one applies the clear coat. However, Bausen et al. does disclose that at least one of the partition walls (8c) can be shared between adjacent stations, and that the stations should be as close as possible to avoid dust or vapors escaping when opening the doors (par. 9, figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make all of the partition walls (8) shared between adjacent stations, since Bausen et al. teaches that the seal of each cabin is important and opening only one door rather than two will further improve the goal of reducing dust/vapor leakage (pars. 9-10), and further because Bausen et al. shows that having a shared partition wall (8c) is functionally equivalent to having two separate partition walls (8a, 8b) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. still fails to explicitly disclose a separate station for applying the clearcoat. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including a large number of stations each performing a single task, including a number of painting stations (34, 35a-c) including separate stations for a first coat (224/236) and a second coat (230/340) (col. 4 lines 19-32, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate at least one of the stations of Bausen et al. such that the two painting operations can take place in separate stations as taught by Barich et al. because Barich et al. teaches that having more stations available can help reduce bottlenecks in production based on the individual needs of each facility (col. 2 lines 1-12, col. 8 lines 1-10) and because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Bausen et al. and Barich et al. fail to explicitly disclose an HVAC system associated with each booth, for maintaining environmental conditions within the respective booth. However, Jang discloses a similar painting process line having a number of discrete zones or booths, where each zone includes an independent air control system (10) having a number of air conditioners and measuring devices capable of maintaining a temperature and humidity of the corresponding zone independently from other zones, including heating the air such that they can be considered HVAC systems (par. 32-37, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use individual HVAC systems as taught by Jang for the booths of Bausen et al. because Jang teaches that this solves problems relating to wait time and throughput due to changes in air conditions between processes, as well as reduces energy loss for the process (pars. 5-7).
Bausen et al. discloses that the painting station uses a painting process carried out in a robot-assisted fashion, but fails to explicitly disclose an inkjet printer to apply the paint/livery. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment system which uses an inkjet printhead (300) on the end of an automated robot (202) arm (212) to apply paint to the aircraft (pars. 46-47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inkjet system to robotically apply the paint of Bausen et al. as taught by Mathis because Mathis teaches that inkjet printheads are functionally equivalent to many other types of application devices for coating aircraft parts (par. 47) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. explicitly states that the partition walls or doors can be closed to prevent dust or vapors from escaping into adjacent areas, and opened only briefly to allow only a minimal amount of dust or vapors to escape (par. 9). Bausen et al. further explicitly states that each station can be completely sealed off between doors that delimit adjacent stations (par. 9). Therefore, Bausen et al. clearly discloses that the partitions (8c) are sealable to maintain environmental conditions (such as presence of dust or solvent vapor) in each respective station.
Additionally, the limitation “to maintain the first/second environmental conditions separate from the second/third environmental conditions” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use of the system and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use 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. MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 10: Bausen et al. discloses that the stations have closed cabin-like shapes such that they are closed on all sides and therefore block external light (par. 9), meaning the ambient light conditions within each station would inherently be reduced relative to exterior conditions. Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang fail to explicitly disclose that the system and each booth are located within a hangar bay. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus including each of the stations of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 11-12: Bausen et al. discloses that the partitions (8) include door elements (9) which can be opened or closed to allow the aircraft part (4) to traverse through to the next station (par. 23).
Regarding claim 13: Bausen et al. and Mathis disclose the above combination in which an automatic or semi-automatic robot (202) uses the inkjet head (300) to apply the ink as a print medium automatically (Mathis pars. 46-47, figure 5).
Regarding claim 14: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is an aircraft rudder unit, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that it is a wingless aircraft fuselage. However, in apparatus claims, the article worked upon does not further structurally define the apparatus itself and is therefore treated as an intended use limitation. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Therefore, as the apparatus of Bausen et al. is capable of working on a wingless aircraft fuselage it reads on claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is sanded, such that a prior coating is removed, but does not explicitly disclose another station or equipment for performing this sanding process. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including blasting stations (30, 32) having blasting equipment including a blast arm (106) meant to remove any previous coating provided with bays for performing the blasting operation (col. 6 lines 35-62). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a blasting station similar to that of Barich et al. to perform the sanding operation of Bausen et al. because Barich et al. teaches that performing a blasting/sanding operation in an enclosed bay/station is functionally equivalent to doing so in the generic way disclosed by Bausen et al., and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
In modifying Bausen et al. to include a blasting/sanding station it would obviously include another partition (8) and door (9) shared by the subsequent station, which in the case of Bausen et al. it would be the pretreatment station (1) which treats the sanded aircraft part (4) (Bausen et al. par. 24, figure 1).
Regarding claim 16: Bausen et al. discloses that the partitions (8) include door elements (9) which can be opened or closed to allow the aircraft part (4) to traverse through to the next station (par. 23).
Regarding claim 18: Bausen et al. discloses an aircraft treatment system including a plurality of cabin-like stations including a pretreating station (1), a painting station (2) and a decorating station (3), each station having partition walls (8a-c) where at least the partition wall (8c) between the painting station (2) and decorating station (3) is shared between the two booths. Bausen et al. discloses that the first station prepares the surface of the aircraft part (4), the second station applies a painting including a base coat and a clear coat, which can be considered “application of a livery” (pars. 22-25, figure 1).
Bausen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that all of the stations have common partition walls (8a-c), and fails to explicitly disclose that one station applies the paint and the subsequent one applies the clear coat. However, Bausen et al. does disclose that at least one of the partition walls (8c) can be shared between adjacent stations, and that the stations should be as close as possible to avoid dust or vapors escaping when opening the doors (par. 9, figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make all of the partition walls (8) shared between adjacent stations, since Bausen et al. teaches that the seal of each cabin is important and opening only one door rather than two will further improve the goal of reducing dust/vapor leakage (pars. 9-10), and further because Bausen et al. shows that having a shared partition wall (8c) is functionally equivalent to having two separate partition walls (8a, 8b) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. still fails to explicitly disclose a separate station for applying the clearcoat. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including a large number of stations each performing a single task, including a number of painting stations (34, 35a-c) including separate stations for a first coat (224/236) and a second coat (230/340) (col. 4 lines 19-32, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate at least one of the stations of Bausen et al. such that the two painting operations can take place in separate stations as taught by Barich et al. because Barich et al. teaches that having more stations available can help reduce bottlenecks in production based on the individual needs of each facility (col. 2 lines 1-12, col. 8 lines 1-10) and because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Bausen et al. and Barich et al. fail to explicitly disclose an HVAC system associated with each booth, for maintaining environmental conditions within the respective booth. However, Jang discloses a similar painting process line having a number of discrete zones or booths, where each zone includes an independent air control system (10) having a number of air conditioners and measuring devices capable of maintaining a temperature and humidity of the corresponding zone independently from other zones, including heating the air such that they can be considered HVAC systems (par. 32-37, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use individual HVAC systems as taught by Jang for the booths of Bausen et al. because Jang teaches that this solves problems relating to wait time and throughput due to changes in air conditions between processes, as well as reduces energy loss for the process (pars. 5-7).
Bausen et al. discloses that the painting station uses a painting process carried out in a robot-assisted fashion, but fails to explicitly disclose an inkjet printer to apply the paint/livery. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment system which uses an inkjet printhead (300) on the end of an automated robot (202) arm (212) to apply paint to the aircraft (pars. 46-47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inkjet system to robotically apply the paint of Bausen et al. as taught by Mathis because Mathis teaches that inkjet printheads are functionally equivalent to many other types of application devices for coating aircraft parts (par. 47) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the system is located within a hangar bay. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Bausen et al. explicitly states that the partition walls or doors can be closed to prevent dust or vapors from escaping into adjacent areas, and opened only briefly to allow only a minimal amount of dust or vapors to escape (par. 9). Bausen et al. further explicitly states that each station can be completely sealed off between doors that delimit adjacent stations (par. 9). Therefore, Bausen et al. clearly discloses that the partitions (8c) are sealable to maintain environmental conditions (such as presence of dust or solvent vapor) in each respective station.
Additionally, the limitation “to maintain the first/second environmental conditions separate from the second/third environmental conditions” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use of the system and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use 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. MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 19: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is sanded, such that a prior coating is removed, but does not explicitly disclose another station or equipment for performing this sanding process. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including blasting stations (30, 32) having blasting equipment including a blast arm (106) meant to remove any previous coating provided with bays for performing the blasting operation (col. 6 lines 35-62). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a blasting station similar to that of Barich et al. to perform the sanding operation of Bausen et al. because Barich et al. teaches that performing a blasting/sanding operation in an enclosed bay/station is functionally equivalent to doing so in the generic way disclosed by Bausen et al., and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
In modifying Bausen et al. to include a blasting/sanding station it would obviously include another partition (8) and door (9) shared by the subsequent station, which in the case of Bausen et al. it would be the pretreatment station (1) which treats the sanded aircraft part (4) (Bausen et al. par. 24, figure 1).
Regarding claim 20: Bausen et al. discloses a transport rail system (6) for seamlessly transporting the aircraft part (4) through the set of treatment stations (1-3) (par. 22, figure 1).
Regarding claim 21: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) of each system (10) is set to control conditions differently based on the exact needs of each spray booth (Jang pars. 36-37).
Regarding claim 22: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones measures temperature and humidity outside of the booths in order to determine how to treat the air before it is introduced into the booth such that the conditions in the outdoor zone would be different from those inside the booth zones (Jang pars. 34-35, figure 2). Bausen et al., Barich et al., and Jang fail to explicitly disclose a hangar bay in which the booths are located.
However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus including each of the stations of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 23: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones control both air temperature and humidity (Jang par. 36).
Regarding claim 24: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones includes burners and reheaters which are heating devices (Jang par. 37).
Regarding claim 25: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) have safety monitoring systems such that the controller (155) of the system can determine if a signal from each air conditioner (13) is abnormal and generate an alarm based on various operational environmental conditions for each specific air conditioner (13) (Jang par. 61). Because each of the air conditioners (13) correspond to a specific booth these safety systems can be considered to correspond with the materials used by each booth.
Regarding claim 26: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) of each system (10) is set to control conditions differently based on the exact needs of each spray booth (Jang pars. 36-37).
Regarding claim 27: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones measures temperature and humidity outside of the booths in order to determine how to treat the air before it is introduced into the booth such that the conditions in the hangar corresponding to the outdoor zone would be different from those inside the booth zones (Jang pars. 34-35, figure 2).
Regarding claim 28: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones control both air temperature and humidity (Jang par. 36).
Regarding claim 29: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) have safety monitoring systems such that the controller (155) of the system can determine if a signal from each air conditioner (13) is abnormal and generate an alarm based on various operational environmental conditions for each specific air conditioner (13) (Jang par. 61). Because each of the air conditioners (13) correspond to a specific booth these safety systems can be considered to correspond with the materials used by each booth.
Claim 14 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis as applied to claims 9-13, 15-16 and 18-29 above and further in view of Swanberg et al. (US 2010/0233373).
Regarding claim 14: Bausen et al. discloses that the apparatus is for construction of aircraft in general with large features (par. 3) but only gives a specific example of a rudder unit. However, Swanberg et al. discloses a similar aircraft treatment apparatus which provides separate treatment of wings, fuselages and rudders (par. 35). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Bausen et al. to treat wingless fuselages as Swanberg et al. discloses because Swanberg et al. teaches that all of these parts are often treated separately prior to assembly (par. 5, 35, 111) and because use of a known technique, such as the apparatus of Bausen et al. to improve similar devices (i.e. a fuselage rather than a rudder) in the same way is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the prior art does not teach inkjet painting or a separate clearcoat station.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments appear to ignore much of what has been previously discussed in prior Office actions. Bausen et al. has never been cited to teach an inkjet printing, nor has it been cited to use a separate station for the clearcoat application, but rather performs that in the one painting station. Mathis was previously cited to teach an inkjet painting applicator, which uses an automated robot arm, and Barich et al. was previously cited to teach multiple different painting stations for subsequent painting steps (i.e. first coat, second coat), and those teachings, together with the apparatus of Bausen et al., does indeed read on the claims as currently recited.
Applicant’s arguments appear to completely misrepresent Barich et al. by stating that Barich et al. does not address coating technologies. This is entirely false, Barich et al. is primarily drawn to a workflow arrangement for multiple paint and cure stations for applying paint coatings as well as other coatings to vehicles, and is thus heavily focused on coating technologies. Barich et al. explains that using multiple separate painting booths for any of the subsequent coats needed will help reduce bottlenecking of the overall treatment of the multiple vehicles, and this is an adequate teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple stations for the multiple coats of Bausen et al. Applicant presents no arguments disputing this combination previously cited in multiple Office actions, and rather simply argues that Barich et al. alone does not read on the entire claim. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant presents similar arguments regarding Mathis, that Mathis itself does not read on the claims, but presents no argument regarding Mathis in view of Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang, simply stating that it does not read on the claims without pointing out any specific area in which the art is lacking.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
2/10/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717