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 .
1. This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/147, 574 filed on 12/18/2022 with a U.S. provisional application filed on 12/28/2021. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a “drain (12)” in fig. 1 and “gutter system (13)” in fig. 4 and 5 as described in page 4, lines 13-21 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luethi et al. (WO2018185636A) in view of Ford (US3540787A).
Regarding Claim 1: Luethi et al. teach an automated painting apparatus. The apparatus is comprised of a paint box as shown in the annotated diagram below, an object support (4) comprised of clamps (141) (canvas mount) to hold a substrate/canvas [para 0065; Abstract], a paint head (8) [para 0066;Abstract] for displacing paint (paint discharge system), and a motion system (110) (gantry system) [fig.1;Abstract] which is positioned on top of a canvas and is being placed over the plurality of legs as shown in annotated diagram below [Fig 1]. The paint feed (8) is coupled to the motion system as shown in annotated figure below. The diagram depicts a lateral cover mounted around legs. The annotated diagram below shows clamps (141) (canvas mount) to hold a canvas. Luethi et al. specifically do not show a bottom cover that is slanted, and a tripod system.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ford (US 3540787A) teach a paint box comprised of a boxlike body (12) consists of a bottom wall or base (16), a front wall (18), a rear wall (20) and side walls (22) and a handle (23). The walls represent the claimed lateral covers. The boxlike body (paint box, which also includes a canvas) is mounted on top a metal tripod as shown in fig. 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the box including the tripod into the invention Luethi et al. because Ford teaches that the box has multiple compartments and the compartments helps to hold articles used for painting [column 2, lines 32-46] and the tripod helps to support the box stay in a horizontal position [Abstract].
Additionally, the modification of the paint box to include a slanted bottom base/wall/cover would have been obvious as a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the bottom cover is in an incline position so that excess paint can drain with gravity.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 2: Luethi et al. teach a lateral cover as shown in the annotated diagram above. There are left, right, and a rear cover as shown in the annotated diagram above. A lateral left cover is externally mounted to the two different legs (first and third leg). A right cover is also shown that is being externally mounted to two different legs (second and fourth leg). Luethi et al do not teach a slanted bottom cover and the slanted bottom cover being attached perimetrically.
Ford teaches a paint box with a rectangular bottom wall or base, and the wall is placed in such a way so that the top part is covered. The bottom wall is mounted in a way so that the wall is attached to each of the front, rear and side wall (perimetrically) [fig 1-7; column 2, lines 17-32]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the box into the invention Luethi et al. because ford teaches that the box has multiple compartments and the compartments helps to hold articles used for painting. [column 2, lines 32-46]
Regarding Claim 7: Luethi et al. disclose in fig.1 plurality of mounts (solid circles and dotted circles in the annotated diagram below), left and right linear actuators and a cross actuator as shown in the annotated diagram below.
The painting apparatus has multiple legs and mounts are arranged over the legs. The first, second, third, and fourth legs, as claimed, can be arbitrary. The solid circles represent the front and rear mounts, that are mounted on top of the legs of the painting apparatus.
The left and right actuators are assembled with the mounts as shown in the annotated diagram below. The left and right actuator is extended from one leg from to the other leg in the X direction.
The dotted circles show the left and right slidable mounts. The left and right slidable mounts are mounted on the left and right actuator assembly respectively.
The dotted line shows right mount and front mount as well as left mount and front mount perpendicular to each other. The actuator in the middle is mounted to the left and right mount and highlighted in dotted circles. The actuator in the middle is extended from the left cover to the right cover.
PNG
media_image2.png
603
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13: Luethi et al. teach a camera mounted on the apparatus [para 153]. While Luethi et al. do not specify that location of the camera is by an actuator, picking a specific location to insert a camera is a matter of design choice as held in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to mount a camera to cross actuator assembly of the gantry because Luethi et al. teach that camera assists in adjusting thickness of paint to be applied on canvas [para 0179].
See MPEP 2144.04 and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.)
Regarding Claim 14: Luethi et al teach a structured light system. Luethi et al. suggests that the light system can be mounted on a non-moving support (mounts) [para 122]. The orientation of the light system is based on convenience, and it is a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a light system with plurality of lights because Luethi et al. teach that light system is used to illuminate an object to be painted on.
Regarding Claim 15: Luethi et al. teach dryers (2824) are placed in rack (2820) [para 173]. While Luethi et al. did not disclose a dryer being specifically attached to a cover of the painting apparatus, integrating a drying unit to lateral cover is a matter of design choice as held in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate a drying unit to a lateral cover for drying wet paint.
See MPEP 2144.04 and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device).
4. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luethi et al. (WO2018185636A) and Ford (US3540787A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blackwelder (US 20210252736 A1)
Regarding Claim 3: Luethi et al. teach a painting apparatus as described above in paragraph 3. However, Luethi et al and Ford do not teach a drain and a gutter system.
Blackwelder teaches a painting apparatus that is comprised of a fluid outlet (134) (drain) and a retention tray (136) (gutter system) [para 43-47]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the fluid outlet and mount it to the bottom cover into the combination of Luethi et al. and Ford, while also including a retention tray in a opposite location of the canvas mount of Luethi et al. and Ford because Blackwelder teaches that the fluid outlet allows the exit of accumulated excess liquid from painting chamber and the retention tray collect excess spills. [para 44-45]
Regarding Claim 4: Luethi et al. teach a painting apparatus as described above in paragraph 3. Luethi et al. further teach a support track with sliding bracket as annotated in the diagram below. However, Luethi et al and Ford do not teach a gutter system.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Blackwelder teach a retention tray (136) (gutter system and bucket) and a secure frame (138) (support track). The retention tray is positioned bottom of the painting apparatus and the drain (134) as shown in figure 1 and 8. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a support track with a slidable bracket and attach multiple retention trays to the slidable bracket for moving and have the retention tray spaced apart from the bottom part of the painting apparatus because Blackwelder teach that retention tray collects excess material.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luethi et al. (WO2018185636A) and Ford (US3540787A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tiffen et al. (US 20040155159 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Luethi et al. teach a painting apparatus as described above in paragraph 3. However, Luethi et al and Ford do not teach a tripod system.
Tiffen et al. teach a tripod with three telescopic legs (22, 24, 26) (retractable base) [para 0021], an extension shaft depicted in fig 4 and 5, a ball mechanism (64) connected to a distal end of the extension shaft [fig 2 and 4]. The absence of a motor merely reflects a manual adjustment. Automating a known manually operated system by incorporating a motor to perform the same positioning is well known and would have been obvious. As held in In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91 (CCPA 1958), the automation of a known manual process is obvious. While Tiffen et al. does not disclose a motor for adjusting the tripod, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate the tripod adjustment of Tiffen et al., thereby requiring a motor, because automating a known manually operated system is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Additionally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the tripod into the invention of Luethi et al. because Tiffen et al. teach that a tripod is a well-known functionally equivalent element for holding objects to be treated in a stable position, and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luethi et al. (WO2018185636A) and Ford (US3540787A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ventura et al. (US 6024348 A)
Regarding Claim 6: Luethi et al. teach a painting apparatus as described above in paragraph 3. However, Luethi et al and Ford do not teach a canvas mount with a hub and telescopic arms.
Ventura et al. teach a stand (canvas mount) to hold a structure. The stand comprised of a fixed bar (51) (hub) and plurality of slidable arms (telescopic arms) as shown in the annotated diagram below. The slidable arms are connected to the fixed bar and can be extended into equivalent lengths. [column 3, lines 37-67; column 4, lines 1-12; para 9-13]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a fixed bar with slidable arms into the tripod’s ball mechanism as described in paragraph of claim 5 to hold objects such as a canvas. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, A. and 2143.02).
PNG
media_image4.png
459
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
7. Claim 9, 10, 11, and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Luethi et al. (WO2018185636A) and Ford (US3540787A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (CN 111729800 A)
Regarding Claim 9: Luethi et al. disclose paint reservoirs (20) (paint cup) for paints and a structure that is attached to the paint reservoirs and holds the paint reservoirs (cup holder) shown in the first annotated diagram below. Luethi et al. further disclose a control unit (24) (cup actuating mechanism) to control operation of the paint head (8). [para 0068; fig 2,3,4]. Fig 1 discloses an actuator (cross actuator assembly) on top of a canvas and also described above in paragraph 3. The second annotated diagram shows cross actuator like structure nut and bolt structures and has a sliding bracket-like structure.
Fig. 3 shows support arm from the second annotated diagram is attached to the sliding bracket-like structure. Fig. 3 also depicts the structure (cup holder) holding the paint reservoirs mounted to the support arm from the second annotated diagram.
PNG
media_image5.png
426
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
411
546
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Luethi et al. specifically do not teach a bi-directional nut.
Huang teach a paint spraying device which includes a nut (431) similar to a bi-directional nut as disclosed in fig 5. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the nut (bi-directional nut) with a regular nut and bolt arrangement to hold/lock a structure both ways. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 10, 11 and 12: Luethi et al. disclose a paint head (8) which includes nozzles (50) as shown in figure 6 and 2. Paint head (8) includes a paint feeder (23) which connects the paint head with pain reservoirs (paint cup) [para 0068]. The nozzles of the paint head can also release washing fluid (water) [para 103-104]. Luethi et al. further suggests that the washing fluid nozzle could be used to either draw water or air [para 104]. It would have been to include a nozzle that discharge air because Luethi et al. teach that discharging air would help dissolve paint coating. [Para 104]
Fig 6 shows the nozzles (50) are connected to a rotatable member (28) which is able to rotate/change the position of nozzles. [para 70-78], therefore suggests that at least one of the nozzles can be oriented to a desired position. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the rotatable member because Luethi et al teach that the rotation of rotatable member (28) about paint head axis allows orientation of a forward position nozzle as desired while applying paint strokes to the object to be painted on. [para 73].
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 would be allowable because the prior art does not disclose or suggest the specific structural limitation of the left linear actuator assembly, the right linear actuator assembly, and the cross actuator assembly each comprising an actuator motor, a lead screw, a bi- directional nut, at least one sliding bracket, and at least one rail of the painting apparatus as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717