Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/101,650

Automated Painting System

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 26, 2023
Examiner
PROCTOR, CACHET I
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
814 granted / 1058 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1083
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1058 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “operable” should read “operably”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 14-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713). As to claim 1, Annese et al. discloses a self-moving device for spraying a surface (see abstract). The device comprises a housing having a compartment for holding paint (see 4 of Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 35-36); a spraying mechanism connected to the compartment (see 10 of Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 14-16) and that sprays paint within an area (see col. 2, lines 65-67); a driving system configured to move the housing (see moving system 6 of Fig. 1); a global positioning system connected to an onboard control for determining the position of the housing (see co. 3k lines 43-49); the onboard control receives design input (see col. 4, lines 31-42); the design is mapped out using discrete spots which correspond to the printing area (see abstract) the housing positioned within the spot using the drive system; moving the spray head to paint the associated design and repositioning to the next spot and repeating (see col. 3 line 62 – col. 4, line 3). PNG media_image1.png 486 766 media_image1.png Greyscale Annese et al. fails to teach the spray head is connected to an arm which is connected to the compartment where the spray head is configured to move about a plurality of axes or the design is mapped using an array of blocks arranged in a row and column corresponding to the spray area of the spray head as required by claim 1. Hendricks Sr. discloses a robotic maintenance system having a paint applicator mounted on an articulated positioning mechanisms that allows movement of the paint spraying about a plurality of axes (see 0007). Hendricks Sr. states the system improves the quality of road maintenance and optimize maintenance tasks (see 0005). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Annese et al. to include the multi-axis arm of Hendricks Sr. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to road spraying systems where Hendricks Sr. further teaches the use of a multi-axis arm improving the accuracy of the materials applied (see 0013). Falk discloses a system for digitizing a surface by receiving an image/design input; mapping the design into a 2D array (rows and columns) and using the array to determine where the design should be placed (see abstract, col. 7, line 63 – col. 8,line 68). The design is mapped as a rectangular array of pixels (see col. 5, lines 29-31) which corresponds to a discrete region of the design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Annese et al. and Hendricks Sr. to include the row and column array structure to create a digital design as taught by Falk. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to digitizing a design to apply to a substrate where Falk teaches a technique of storing and accessing digital design information that allows for a simpler and less expensive system. As to claims 3 and 4, Annese discloses the power supply is a rechargeable battery (see col. 2, lines 49). As to claim 5, Hendricks Sr. discloses the use of a generator as a power source (see 0050). Hendricks teaches a known alternative power source. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Annese to include the generator power source of Hendricks Sr. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another with the same intended use provides predictable results. It would have been obvious to use the power source of Hendrick. As to claim 11, the control is configured to receive a predesigned pattern and execute the pattern by controlling the spraying mechanism (see col. 4, lines 10-20). As to claim 14, Hendricks teaches the spray mechanism is adapted to spray in various orientations (0048). As to claim 15, the drive system comprises a plurality of wheels extending from a base of the housing (see 3 of Fig. 1 of Annese). As to claim 17, the system comprises a camera mounted where eh camera is connected to a remote electronic device for monitoring (see col. 4, lines 4 – 42). As to claim 19, Hendricks Sr. discloses the arm that is moveable in multiple axes has a ball joint (see Fig. 9 and 14) Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Dolinar et al. (US 20130184938). The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk as applied to claim 1 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk fail to teach the system comprises a servomotor operably connected to the driving system to drive the housing. Dolinar et al. discloses an apparatus for making a roadway (see abstract). Dolinar states the system comprises a GPS, computer, imager, nozzle array, control system, movable cross track carriage and a servo system (see 0075). Dolinar states the servo system controls actuators and the moveable cross track carriage (see 0088). Dolinar teaches an alternative device for controlling the drive system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk to include the servo system. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed systems based on GPS positioning used for marking roadways and Dolinar et al. teaches an alternative system for controlling the drive system. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose provided predictable results. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dolinar et al. (US 20130184938) and Cotta Sr. (US 9096172). The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk as applied to claim 1 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk fail to teach the system comprises a light bar pivotally connected to the housing where the light bar comprises at least one light configured to illuminate a surrounding area of the housing as required by claim 6. Dolinar et al. discloses an apparatus for making a roadway (see abstract). Dolinar et al. stats the apparatus can include a floodlight to illuminate an area when in low ambient light conditions while performing marking (see 0147). Cotta Sr. et al. discloses a lighting system including an elongated light bar that is mountable on a support structure (see abstract). The bar can be pivotally attached to the structure (see abstract). The lighting system can be mounted to a vehicle to illuminate an area around the vehicle (see col. 1, lines 18-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk to include pivotably attached light bar in order to illuminate the printing area during low light times as taught by Dolinar et al. and Cotta Sr. et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to marking a roadway using a PGS machine where Dolinar and Cotta Sr. further teaches using an illuminating device on a vehicle to provide light during dusk or nighttime. As to claim 7, Dolinar et al. discloses multiple lights on opposite ends to illuminate the areas being coated (see 0146-0147). Dolinar et al. shows the lights are mounted high to properly illuminate the area. Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613), Falk (US 488713), Dolinar et al. (US 20130184938), and Cotta Sr. (US 9096172) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Mansfield et al. (WO 2020232163) The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr., Falk, Dolinar et al., and Cotta Sr. as applied to claim 6 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr., Falk, Dolinar et al., and Cotta Sr. fail to teach the light bar comprises a GPS transmitter dome at a distal end as required by claim 8. Mansfield et al. discloses an antenna equipped light bar mounted onto a vehicle that improves weather resistance, aerodynamics and antenna performance. The antenna can be a GPS antenna (See 0038). The light bar comprises a housing and a shielding panel to provided shielding from electromagnetic interference (see claim 1). The light bar further comprises a domed cover (See claim 2). It would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr., Falk, Dolinar et al., and Cotta Sr. to include the light bar comprising a GPS transmitter as taught by Mansfield et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to light bars mounted on vehicles and such vehicles having GPS antennas where Mansfield et al. further teaches combining the antenna with the light bar provides improved antenna performance and protection. As to claim 13, it is well known in the art to provide flashing lights on both the front and rear of a construction vehicle to alert other drivers that the vehicle is working, moving slow or a lane is closed. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Smrt (US 3796353). The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk as applied to claim 1 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk fail to teach the spraying mechanism further comprises a spray shield to enclose the spray head as required by claim 9. Smrt discloses a spraying apparatus for applying a marking strip to pavement, grass or other surfaces (see abstract). The apparatus comprises a spray nozzle having a frame (enclosing the spray head/ see 21-23 of Figures) and a wind screen (shield) to protect the marking material while being sprayed (see col. 1, lines 40-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk to include the frame/screen of Smrt. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to spraying a marking material onto a road where Smrt further teaches the frame/screen can ensure the spray material is provided at the correct location and is not affected by outside elements. As to claim 10, the frame/screen comprises opposing planar members (see 21, 28 of Fig. 4) that are adjustable (see col. 4, lines 9-12). Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Clifford (US 8051796). The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk as applied to claim 1 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk fail to teach to teach a second compartment configured to hold a second color paint where the second compartment is operably connected to the spraying mechanism as required by claim 12 or multiple nozzles as required by claim 20. Clifford discloses a robotic apparatus for painting. The painting system comprises a paint supply unit with multiple paint feed lines (teaching more than one paint supply path/ multiple compartments). Clifford shows the apparatus has a spray head having multiple applicators/nozzles (see col. 1) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk to include multiple compartments and nozzles as taught by Clifford. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to robotic spraying devices where Clifford teaches a system where multiple different colors can be used dependent upon the design being formed. Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annese et al. (US 8021077) in view of Hendricks Sr. (US 2021/0277613) and Falk (US 488713) as applied to claim 1 above Wu et al. (CN 209734936) The teachings of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk as applied to claim 1 are as stated above. Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk fail to teach the system comprises a driving system with a plurality of tracks extending from the base of the housing as required by claim 16 or the housing moves in a crab walk as required by claim 18. Wu et al. discloses an automatic line spraying robot that can move in all directions. The system comprises a tracking sensor, a spraying device, and a vehicle body. Wu et al. discloses the driving system comprises crawler with a plurality of tracks extending from the base (wheel bands 4 of Fig. 2) allowing for omni omni-directional rotation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Annese et al., Hendricks Sr. and Falk to include the drive system of Wu et all. One would have bene motivated to do so since both are directed to automatic marking systems where Wu et al. teaches the drive system allows for omni -movement with improves the efficiency of the device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /CACHET I. PROCTOR/ Examiner Art Unit 1715 /CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599322
METHOD FOR AN ANALYTE SENSOR COVER-MEMBRANE PREPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599922
System and Method for Liquid Dispense and Coverage Control
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601057
SOAKING AND ESC CLAMPING SEQUENCE FOR HIGH BOW SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604389
PLASMA IRRADIATION APPARATUS AND PLASMA-TREATED LIQUID PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589208
A Lubricating Shuttle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+5.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1058 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month