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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 17 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 17 March 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi et al. (US 2021/0039127) in view of Zehner et al. (US 2003/0127046).
Regarding claim 15, Alvisi discloses a retrofit kit for a can IC spray machine, the can IC spray machine having a spray gun (52) having a nozzle (53) at a first end (fig. 1); the retrofit kit comprising:
a bracket (50) mounted to the spray gun (fig. 1);
an actuator (22/25) mounted on the bracket (fig. 1), the actuator having at least first and second modes: an actuated mode (“C”) and an unactuated mode (“R”); an actuator shaft (25) projecting from the actuator (figs. 9, 10), the actuator shaft remaining in a first angular rotation position when the actuator is in the unactuated mode (fig. 9) but rotating to a second angular rotation position when the actuator is in the actuated mode (fig. 10), the actuator shaft returning to the first angular rotation position when the actuator returns to the unactuated mode (par. 110; fig. 2-4);
a nozzle cleaning brush (30) mounted to the actuator shaft whereby the nozzle cleaning brush remains in a first location when the actuator shaft is in the first angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 9), but the nozzle cleaning brush moving to a second location when the actuator shaft is in the second angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 10), the nozzle cleaning brush returning to the first location when the actuator shaft returns to the first angular rotation position (par. 144); the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations (par. 149).
Alvisi does not disclose that the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations.
Zehner teaches a device for cleaning nozzles (par. 1) comprising a nozzle cleaning brush (52) that sweeps across the nozzle during rotation of an actuator shaft (48, see par. 16, 21-23).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray machine of Alvisi to further cause the nozzle cleaning brush to sweep across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations since Zehner teaches that rotating a nozzle cleaning brush such that it sweeps across a nozzle loosens and removes paint from the nozzle, which is then carried by the rotating brush into a solvent solution and rinsed from the brush whereby the clean brush can then rotate back over the nozzle to further clean it (par. 22).
Regarding claim 16, Alvisi in view of Zehner discloses the retrofit kit described regarding claim 15, and further wherein the brush comprises: a brush arm (22) having first and second ends, the first end mounted on the actuator shaft, the second end having projecting therefrom a resilient cleaning head (32, figs. 9, 10).
Regarding claim 18, Alvisi in view of Zehner discloses the retrofit kit described regarding claim 16, and further wherein the actuator is electrically operated (par. 143).
Claims 1-4, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi in view of Hollesen et al. (US 5,065,692) and Zehner et al. (US 2003/0127046).
Regarding claim 1, Alvisi discloses a can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism (10’) comprising:
a spray gun (52) having a nozzle (53) at a first end (fig. 1);
a bracket (50) mounted to the spray gun (fig. 1);
an actuator (22/25) mounted on the bracket (fig. 1), the actuator having at least first and second modes: an actuated mode (“C”) and an unactuated mode (“R”); an actuator shaft (25) projecting from the actuator (figs. 9, 10), the actuator shaft remaining in a first angular rotation position when the actuator is in the unactuated mode (fig. 9) but rotating to a second angular rotation position when the actuator is in the actuated mode (fig. 10), the actuator shaft returning to the first angular rotation position when the actuator returns to the unactuated mode (par. 110; fig. 2-4);
a nozzle cleaning brush (30) mounted to the actuator shaft whereby the nozzle cleaning brush remains in a first location when the actuator shaft is in the first angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 9), but the nozzle cleaning brush moving to a second location when the actuator shaft is in the second angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 10), the nozzle cleaning brush returning to the first location when the actuator shaft returns to the first angular rotation position (par. 144); the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations (par. 149).
Alvisi does not disclose that the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations, or an exhaust box having an exhaust box entrance disposed proximate to the second location, the exhaust box having a negative pressure which tends to such loose material from the second location into the exhaust box.
Regarding the former, Zehner teaches a device for cleaning nozzles (par. 1) comprising a nozzle cleaning brush (52) that sweeps across the nozzle during rotation of an actuator shaft (48, see par. 16, 21-23).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray machine of Alvisi to further cause the nozzle cleaning brush to sweep across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations since Zehner teaches that rotating a nozzle cleaning brush such that it sweeps across a nozzle loosens and removes paint from the nozzle, which is then carried by the rotating brush into a solvent solution and rinsed from the brush whereby the clean brush can then rotate back over the nozzle to further clean it (par. 22).
Regarding the latter, Hollesen teaches a spray machine with cleaning mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a spray gun (40), a nozzle cleaning brush (84), and an exhaust box (22) having an exhaust box entrance disposed proximate to a location of the nozzle cleaning brush (fig. 1), the exhaust box having a negative pressure (col. 3, ln. 3-6) which tends to suck loose material from the second location into the exhaust box.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray machine of Alvisi to further comprise an exhaust box having an exhaust box entrance disposed proximate to the second location, the exhaust box having a negative pressure which tends to such loose material from the second location into the exhaust box, as taught by Hollesen, since this was known to provide a means for exhausting fumes or airborne particles from the environment.
Regarding claim 2, Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the nozzle is in the second location, and the nozzle cleaning brush is disposed in the cleaning position on the nozzle when the nozzle is in the second location (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the nozzle is in a third location (fig. 11), the third location disposed intermediate to the first and second locations (figs. 2-3) such that the nozzle cleaning brush sweeps across the nozzle a first time during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush from the first location to the second location, and a second time during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush from the second location to the first location (par. 144, 148-149).
Regarding claim 4, Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the brush comprises: a brush arm (22) having first and second ends, the first end mounted on the actuator shaft, the second end having projecting therefrom a resilient cleaning head (32, see figs. 9, 10).
Regarding claim 6, Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the actuator is electrically operated (par. 143).
Regarding claim 14, Alvisi discloses a can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism (10’) comprising:
a spray gun (52) having a nozzle (53) at a first end (fig. 1);
a bracket (50) mounted to the spray gun (fig. 1);
an actuator (22/25) mounted on the bracket (fig. 1), the actuator having at least first and second modes: an actuated mode (“C”) and an unactuated mode (“R”); an actuator shaft (25) projecting from the actuator (figs. 9, 10), the actuator shaft remaining in a first angular rotation position when the actuator is in the unactuated mode (fig. 9) but rotating to a second angular rotation position when the actuator is in the actuated mode (fig. 10), the actuator shaft returning to the first angular rotation position when the actuator returns to the unactuated mode (par. 110; fig. 2-4);
a nozzle cleaning brush (30) mounted to the actuator shaft whereby the nozzle cleaning brush remains in a first location when the actuator shaft is in the first angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 9), but the nozzle cleaning brush moving to a second location when the actuator shaft is in the second angular rotation position (par. 144; fig. 10), the nozzle cleaning brush returning to the first location when the actuator shaft returns to the first angular rotation position (par. 144); the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations (par. 149).
Alvisi does not disclose that the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations, or wherein the actuator is a motor and with a motor shaft.
Regarding the former, Zehner teaches a device for cleaning nozzles (par. 1) comprising a nozzle cleaning brush (52) that sweeps across the nozzle during rotation of an actuator shaft (48, see par. 16, 21-23).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray machine of Alvisi to further cause the nozzle cleaning brush to sweep across the nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations since Zehner teaches that rotating a nozzle cleaning brush such that it sweeps across a nozzle loosens and removes paint from the nozzle, which is then carried by the rotating brush into a solvent solution and rinsed from the brush whereby the clean brush can then rotate back over the nozzle to further clean it (par. 22).
Regarding the latter, Hollesen teaches a spray machine with cleaning mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a spray gun (40), a nozzle cleaning brush (84), and a motor (47) having a motor shaft projecting from the motor (col. 3, ln. 41-42 – a shaft is inherently required for the motor to drive the sprocket 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spray machine of Alvisi to modify the actuator to be a motor with a shaft, as taught by Hollesen, since a motor was known to be a specific type of actuator.
Claims 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen and further in view of Ineichen et al. (US 2015/0041502).
Regarding claim 5, Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 4, but not further wherein the actuator is pneumatically operated.
Ineichen teaches a retrofit kit for a can IC spray machine, the can IC spray machine having a spray gun having a nozzle (2) at a first end (fig. 1); the retrofit kit comprising:
a bracket (7) mounted to the spray gun (par. 55; fig. 1);
a pneumatic actuator (11, see par. 55) mounted on the bracket (par. 55; fig. 1), the actuator having at least first and second modes: an actuated mode (fig. 16) and an unactuated mode (fig. 15); an actuator shaft (24) projecting from the actuator (fig. 4), the actuator shaft remaining in a first position when the actuator is in the unactuated mode (fig. 15) but moving to a second position when the actuator is in the actuated mode (fig. 16);
a nozzle cleaning part (33) mounted to the actuator shaft whereby the nozzle cleaning brush remains in a first location when the actuator shaft is in the first position (fig. 15), but the nozzle cleaning brush moving to a second location when the actuator shaft is in the second position (fig. 16), the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations (par. 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Alvisi in view of Zehner and Hollesen to be pneumatically operated, as taught by Ineichen, since this was known to be a specific type of means for powering an actuator and would be especially convenient for a spray gun, which often also requires pressurized air.
Regarding claim 7, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 5, and further wherein the first and second angular rotation positions are at least 90 degrees apart (fig. 2 – first position; fig. 4 – second position in which the brush has been rotated from the plane of the page to the plane extending orthogonal to the page).
Regarding claim 8, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 7. Although not disclosed by Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen, it would have been obvious to modify Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen to further comprise a second spray gun having a second nozzle at a second end, the second spray gun mounted non-co-axially to the first spray gun; a second bracket mounted to the second spray gun; a second actuator mounted on the second bracket, the second actuator also having at least the first and second modes: the actuated mode and the unactuated mode; a second actuator shaft projecting from the second actuator, the second actuator shaft remaining in the first angular rotation position when the second actuator is in the unactuated mode but rotating to the second angular rotation position when the second actuator is in the actuated mode, the second actuator shaft returning to the first angular rotation position when the actuator returns to the unactuated mode; a second nozzle cleaning brush mounted to the second actuator shaft whereby the second nozzle cleaning brush remains in a third location when the second actuator shaft is in the first angular rotation position, but the second nozzle cleaning brush moving to a fourth location when the second actuator shaft is in the second angular rotation position, the second nozzle cleaning brush returning to the third location when the second actuator shaft returns to the first angular rotation position; the second nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the second nozzle during the rotation of the actuator shaft carrying the second nozzle cleaning brush between the third and fourth locations. Such a modification amounts to only a duplication of the essential working parts of the spray machine of Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen, and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, making this modification would provide an additional spray gun that would increase the rate at which an object can be sprayed or provide the ability to spray a second fluid concurrently.
Regarding claim 9, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 8, and whereby when the first and second actuators are actuated, both spray guns receive a nozzle cleaning. Regarding this limitation, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 10, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 9, and wherein the first and second actuators may be actuated multiple times per second. Regarding this limitation, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 11, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 10, and Hollesen further teaches comprising a low infeed condition sensor (col. 5, ln. 26 – “proximity sensor”), the low infeed condition sensor operative to detect a low infeed condition and then actuate the first and second actuators during the low infeed condition (col. 5, ln. 26-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the spray machine with cleaning mechanism of Alvisi, in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen, to comprise a low infeed condition sensor operative to detect a low infeed condition and then actuate the first and second actuators during the low infeed condition, as further taught by Hollesen, since this was a known means for sensing the presence of the object to be coated and energizing the actuator accordingly.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi, in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen, and further in view of Castaldo et al. (US 5,240,502).
Regarding claim 12, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 11, but not further comprising: a human-machine interface, the human-machine interface having a control function, the control function operative when manually actuated to in turn actuate the first and second actuators.
Castaldo teaches a spray machine (fig. 4) with cleaning mechanism (30) comprising: a human-machine interface (56/58), the human-machine interface having a control function, the control function operative when manually actuated to in turn actuate the first and second actuators (col. 5, ln. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the spray machine with cleaning mechanism of Alvisi, in view of Zehner, Hollesen, and Ineichen, to comprise a human-machine interface having a control function, the control function operative when manually actuated to in turn actuate the first and second actuators, as taught by Castaldo, since this was known to allow for overriding the automatic controls if desired.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi, in view of Zehner, Hollesen, Ineichen, and Castaldo, and further in view of Graff et al. (US 4,392,613).
Regarding claim 13, Alvisi in view of Zehner, Hollesen, Ineichen, and Castaldo discloses the can IC spray machine with cleaning mechanism described regarding claim 11, but not further comprising: a timer, the timer operative to detect the passage of a first time since a previous actuation of the first and second actuators, and when the first time is exceeded, pause a can spraying operation and actuate the first and second actuators; the human-machine interface having a control function operative to set the first time.
Graff teaches a spray machine with cleaning mechanism (col. 1, ln. 6-10) comprising a timer (col. 6, ln. 23), the timer operative to detect the passage of a first time since a previous actuation of the first and second actuators, and when the first time is exceeded, pause a can spraying operation and actuate the first and second actuators (col. 6, ln. 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the spray machine with cleaning mechanism of Alvisi, in view of Zehner, Hollesen, Ineichen, and Castaldo to further comprise a timer, the timer operative to detect the passage of a first time since a previous actuation of the first and second actuators, and when the first time is exceeded, pause a can spraying operation and actuate the first and second actuators, as taught by Graff, since this was known to be a means of automatically controlling operation of the spray machine with cleaning mechanism. It would have been further obvious to modify the human-machine interface to have a control function operative to set the first time since this would allow an operator to set the timer as desired.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvisi in view of Zehner, and further in view of Ineichen.
Regarding claim 17, Alvisi in view of Zehner discloses the retrofit kit described regarding claim 16, but not further wherein the actuator is pneumatically operated.
Ineichen teaches a retrofit kit for a can IC spray machine, the can IC spray machine having a spray gun having a nozzle (2) at a first end (fig. 1); the retrofit kit comprising:
a bracket (7) mounted to the spray gun (par. 55; fig. 1);
a pneumatic actuator (11, see par. 55) mounted on the bracket (par. 55; fig. 1), the actuator having at least first and second modes: an actuated mode (fig. 16) and an unactuated mode (fig. 15); an actuator shaft (24) projecting from the actuator (fig. 4), the actuator shaft remaining in a first position when the actuator is in the unactuated mode (fig. 15) but moving to a second position when the actuator is in the actuated mode (fig. 16);
a nozzle cleaning part (33) mounted to the actuator shaft whereby the nozzle cleaning brush remains in a first location when the actuator shaft is in the first position (fig. 15), but the nozzle cleaning brush moving to a second location when the actuator shaft is in the second position (fig. 16), the nozzle cleaning brush sweeping across the nozzle during the moving of the nozzle cleaning brush between the first and second locations (par. 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator of Alvisi in view of Zehner to be pneumatically operated, as taught by Ineichen, since this was known to be a specific type of means for powering an actuator and would be especially convenient for a spray gun, which often also requires pressurized air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752