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 May 7, 2026 was received. Claims 9, 15, 16 and 18-19 were amended and claims 14 and 20 were cancelled.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 7, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 15-16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as both failing to comply with the written description requirement and being indefinite are withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 15 and 19 to remove the recitation of the paint and/or ink removal equipment.
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), Jang (US 2020/0346238) and Mathis (US 2018/0201029) on claims 9-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-29 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
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 try making 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), and trying from a finite number of solutions (all shared, all separate, both shared and separate) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). Bausen et al. further 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), and in the above modification this would apply to all of the chambers such that the aircraft part (4) is seamlessly transported through each chamber without exposing it to an environment external to the booths.
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.
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 9.
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 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 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 try making 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), and trying from a finite number of solutions (all shared, all separate, both shared and separate) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). Bausen et al. further 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), and in the above modification this would apply to all of the chambers such that the aircraft part (4) is seamlessly transported through each chamber without exposing it to an environment external to the booths.
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.
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 18.
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 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 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.
Claims 9-13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-29 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al. in view of Barich et al., Jang, Mathis and Swanberg et al. (US 2010/0233373).
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. further 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), and in the above modification this would apply to all of the chambers such that the aircraft part (4) is seamlessly transported through each chamber without exposing it to an environment external to the booths.
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.
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).
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 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 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. further 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), and in the above modification this would apply to all of the chambers such that the aircraft part (4) is seamlessly transported through each chamber without exposing it to an environment external to the booths.
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.
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).
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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Bausen et al. being drawn to treating a rudder cannot maintain the same environmental conditions as the instant invention when passing a larger fuselage between subsequent stations, and there is no reasoning presented in Bausen et al. to modify all of the interfaces to be shared like that of wall 8c.
In response:
All of Applicant’s arguments appear to come down to the difference between interfaces presented in Bausen et al. To simplify the discussion, figure 1 is shown to be a schematic representation of a device for coating a rudder unit having three work stations (1, 2, 3), however it should be noted that this is explicitly said to be one example of the invention. Figure 1 shows two separate partitions (8a, 8b) separating two stations (1 and 2), but then only one partition (8c) separating two other stations (2 and 3), once again, as an example of how the invention can manifest. Paragraphs 7 to 18 outline how the overall invention can take a number of different forms, and paragraphs 9 and 10 in particular indicate that one important aspect of the invention is how each station is sealed from the exterior environment and how they can be arranged to be a continuous assembly line-like device. Figure 1 shows two different types of partitions that achieve these aims- separate partitions (8a, 8b) which allow the external environment to contact the part (4) as it passes from one station to the next, and a combined partition (8c) which does not allow the external environment to contact the part. Nothing about the disclosure whatsoever indicates or even suggests that certain partitions have to be separate or have to be combined as Applicant appears to be arguing, rather, the disclosure and the figure make it abundantly clear that the schematics shown are simple examples of how each part of the device can be arranged. This is made even further clear that Bausen et al. explicitly states that various elements in the embodiments can be combined together (par. 29). All of this is to say that Bausen et al. makes it extremely clear that having separate partitions (8a, 8b) or combined partitions (8c) are indeed functionally equivalent for the purposes of their own invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would indeed be motivated based solely on this disclosure to try using all combined partitions, try using all separate partitions, or a combination of the two, because Bausen et al. shows that they are functionally equivalent partitions for this device and workflow, and while Applicant may have identified a benefit to one arrangement, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Specifically regarding the discussion of fuselage versus rudder, Applicant is arguing that Bausen et al. being drawn to treating a rudder means it is a small aircraft part. However, Bausen et al. explicitly states that it is drawn to a particularly large-surface rudder (par. 3), suggesting that is indeed capable of treating larger parts. Applicant has provided no evidence or even any specific reasoning as to why designing the invention of Bausen et al. to treat a fuselage would not work- there is nothing mentioned in Bausen et al. about the relative sizes of the cabins or doors, such that these sizes are obviously a matter which Bausen et al. leaves to the skilled artisan to determine for the particular process required. Further, Applicant’s arguments are purely relative, as some aircraft fuselages can indeed be smaller than large aircraft rudders, and Bausen et al. explicitly states this invention is drawn more towards larger types of aircraft for transporting passengers and cargo (par. 3).
Conclusion
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
6/26/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights