DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 15, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 10-16 in the reply filed on September 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Office has not shown that a search and/or examination burden would be greatly increased.
This is not found persuasive because the determination of serious burden is left to the examiner. In this case, as explained in the restriction/election requirement mailed on July 16, 2025, each group has distinct invention. Search and consideration of the two inventions increases
the time needed to provide a determination of patentability by increasing the review of prior art of each invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency for claim 16 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 16 is interpreted to be depending on claim 10.
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telleria (US 2018/0281012).
In regards to claim 10, Telleria teaches an automated drywalling system (100, automated fluid spraying system) comprising:
an end effector devices (160, 370) comprising a painting device (sprayer) that is capable of applying a fluid to a surface during a first pass (fig. 1-4, 12-13; para 36-37);
a vision system (324, 364) and/or sensors (326, 346, 366) that detects the moisture content of applied paint and the temperature of surrounding material, where the vision system and/or sensors is capable of detecting the fluid on the surface and to generate sensor data indicative (fig. 1-4: para. 61), as the vision system and the sensors are connected to a control system (322).
Telleria teaches the sensor is a thermal sensor (imager) (fig. 3-4; para. 61, 83, 97, 100, 104).
Telleria teaches a control system (322, controller) which is connected to the vision system and the sensors which determines spray pattern, paint lines along with a paint dryness and the control system controls movement system of the automated drywalling system (fig. 3-4, 15; para. 16, 37, 97, 100, 104).
Telleria does not explicitly teach a process of determine a location of a spray edge of the fluid on the surface applied during the first pass, based on the sensor data, and to generate a control signal to control the automated fluid spraying system based on the determined location of the spray edge.
However, the recitation of “determine a location of a spray edge of the fluid on the surface applied during the first pass, based on the sensor data, and to generate a control signal to control the automated fluid spraying system based on the determined location of the spray edge” represents an intended use and/or function of the apparatus.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, 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 (MPEP2114).
Therefore, as Telleria teaches the structural limitations of the claim, along with the functions of determining the dryness of applied fluid/paint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to use the control system, the vision system and the sensors to accomplish the process of determining a location of a spray edge of the fluid on the surface applied during the first pass, based on the sensor data, and to generate a control signal to control the automated drywalling system based on the determined location of the spray edge.
In regards to claim 11, Telleria teaches the control system controls the movement system (348, actuator) of the end effector (160, 370) (fig. 1-4; para. 31-32, 35, 37).
In regards to claim 12, Telleria teaches the control system controls the movement system and the end effector (fig. 1-4; para. 31-32, 35, 37), and where Telleria teaches the structural limitations of the claim, along with the functions of determining the dryness of applied fluid/paint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to use the control system, the vision system and the sensors to accomplish the process of movement of the automated drywalling system during a second pass to control overlap of fluid applied during the second pass over fluid on the surface applied during the first pass.
In regards to claim 13, Telleria teaches the painting device (sprayer) is connected to the end effector device (160, 370) which is connected to a robotic arm (140) (fig. 1-4, 12-13, 15-17; para. 25, 28-29, 46); and
the control system controls the movement system, the end effector and the robotic arm (fig. 1-4; para. 31-32, 35, 37).
Telleria teaches the structural limitations of the claim, along with the functions of determining the dryness of applied fluid/paint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to use the control system, the vision system and the sensors to accomplish the process of to control movement of the robotic arm during a second pass to control overlap of fluid applied during the second pass over fluid on the surface applied during the first pass.
In regards to claim 14, Telleria teaches the automated drywalling system comprises a cart (124) which provides motorized (rotor) movement to the automated drywalling system (fig. 1-2; para. 26-29) and the control system controls the movement system (fig. 1-4; para. 31-32, 35, 37).
In regards to claim 15, Telleria teaches the vision system comprises a thermal camera (imager) which is connected to the control system (fig. 3-4; para. 31-32, 33).
Telleria teaches the structural limitations of the claim, along with the functions of determining the dryness of applied fluid/paint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to use the control system and the vision system to accomplish the process of identify a temperature difference between the fluid applied to the surface during the first pass and a portion of the surface around the fluid applied to the surface during the first pass, and to determine the location of the spray edge of the fluid surface applied during the first pass based on the identified temperature difference between the fluid applied to the surface during the first pass and the portion of the surface around the portion fluid applied to the surface during the first pass.
In regards to claim 16, Telleria teaches the sensors (326, 346, 366) detect the temperature of the environment of the automated drywalling system and uses the information along the thermal measurements from the vision system (324, 364) to determine the conditions of applied paint (fig. 3-4; para. 34, 61, 97, 100, 104, 106).
Telleria teaches the structural limitations of the claim, along with the functions of determining the dryness of applied fluid/paint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to use the control system, the vision system and the sensor to accomplish the process of determines the location of the spray edge of the fluid surface applied during the first pass based further on the sensor data indicative of the detected ambient temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717