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 .
Claims 1-17 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the term “the pre-configured paint pattern” lacks antecedent basis. The recitation of “the pre-configured paint pattern” is introduced in claim 4 and/or 5 not claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “augmented reality technology” is unclear and confusing as to what is encompassed by this phrase as well as how this is implemented in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5,8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Watkins (2008/0256817)
Watkins (2008/0256817) teaches a measuring roller and spray device whereby a rolling wheel carried by a frame (claimed painting assembly) measuring means for determining a distance traveled by the wheel (claimed distance measuring wheel) and signal means (claimed control signal) responsive to the measuring means for indicating when the wheel has traveled a preselected distance (abstract). Watkins (2008/0256817) teaches a control box (26) produced a control signal to either spray or stop the spray based upon the signal [0031]-[0038].
Regarding claims 2-5, Watkins (2008/0256817) teaches a lateral buffering means connected to the control box (26) and programmed to accept a preset lateral distance and if this preset lateral distance varies then a sensory indication would be activated to alert the user (claimed predetermined route) and if deviation (threshold distance) from that route then send a signal which would be sent to user to either stop painting or correct the lateral distance and this would be in a straight line as lateral distance from a point.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the starting and stopping of the painting assembly is determined (claims 9 and 17).
Regarding claim 9, the paint assembly is attached to the painting assembly and the distance measuring wheel (Figs 1,3 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, the automatic spraying and stopping of the spray can be determined by time or distance [0038].
Regarding claim 14 and 15, the claimed “transmission member” is the opening and closing of the paint assembly and would be met by the solenoid (36) which activates and deactivates the spraying of the paint based upon the signal and this would meet the claimed “augmented reality technology” [0039].
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 7,12,13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (2008/0256817) in combination with Nielsen et al. (2010/0006667).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Watkins (2008/0256817) are incorporated here.
Watkins (2008/0256817) fails to teach determining the control signal based on an amount of remaining paint in the paint can of the paint assembly.
Nielsen et al. (2010/0006667) teaches a similar marker detection mechanism for use in marking devices and methods of using the same whereby the detection mechanism is determined by determining the amount of marking substance within the dispenser and when the marking dispenser is becoming empty (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watkins (2008/0256817) painting system to include a detection mechanism based on the marking dispenser being empty (claimed remaining paint and/or capacity thereof).
Regarding claim 7, Watkins (2008/0256817) teaches determining distance for a lateral buffering means connected to the control box (26) and programmed to accept a preset lateral distance and if this preset lateral distance varies then a sensory indication would be activated to alert the user (claimed predetermined route) and if deviation (threshold distance) from that route then send a signal which would be sent to user to either stop painting or correct the lateral distance and this would be in a straight line as lateral distance from a point.
Regarding claim 13, the reference teach measuring the traveled distance and the Examiner takes the position that measuring travel speed would be within the skill of one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof with regards to measuring distance or speed of the measuring wheel as this would be similar to that of measuring the distance ad the time it takes to cover the distance would be known and therefore the speed would be able to be calculated.
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner takes the position that one skilled in the art knowing the amount of paint remaining in the dispenser would allow for computational means to determine the amount having been dispensed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins (2008/0256817) in combination with Weavers et al. (2009/0064527).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Watkins (2008/0256817) are incorporated here.
Watkins (2008/0256817) fails to teach determining the control signal based on an amount of remaining paint in the paint can of the paint assembly.
Weavers et al. (2009/0064527) teaches a similar marking and measuring device including a distance measuring wheel whereby the painting is applicable for traffic lines on the street/ground/pavement (claimed ground traffic sign) [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watkins (2008/0256817) painting process to include painting ground traffic signs, i.e. traffic lines, as evidenced by Weavers et al. (2009/0064527) with the expectation of producing similar success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715