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 12/15/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: new Figure 1.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the arch, the rail, the axis, the end effector, the spool, the cable, and the platform must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed invention was not sufficiently described in the original disclosure. The invention is of such a nature that drawings are required for an understanding of how the invention works and to provide sufficient evidence that Applicant possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing. For example, the structural and spatial relationships between the arch, the rail, the end effector, the spool, and the cable are required for understanding the invention but are not sufficiently described in words alone by the Specification. In order to further examine the claims in view of the prior art, the claims will be interpreted as best understood in view of these 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Israel (US 10,259,137 B2).
Consider claims 15-22. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above, Israel teaches a process for performing an operation (spray printing) on a part, the process comprising: moving an arch (102) along at least one rail (106) in a direction generally parallel with an axis of the part; and, moving an end effector (500) associated with the arch circumferentially around the axis by rotating a spool with a cable (see column 16, lines 24-25) partially wound around the spool, the end effector configured to perform the operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that new Figure 1 is sufficiently described in paragraphs [0019]-[0027]. This argument is not persuasive. The structural and spatial relationships shown in new Figure 1 were not sufficiently described in the original disclosure. For example, the original disclosure does not recite the relative positions, sizes, shapes, and connections specifically depicted in new Figure 1.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would know the meaning of the terms “arch”, “spool”, “cable”, and “end effector”. This argument is not persuasive. The test for the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is not merely whether the meanings of the claim terms are known. Rather, it is whether the original disclosure sufficiently conveys that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at that time. As stated in the rejection above, the structural and spatial relationships between the claimed elements was not sufficiently described or shown by the Specification as originally filed.
Applicant argues that Israel does not teach moving an end effector by rotating a spool with a cable. This argument is not persuasive. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, Israel teaches cabling in column 16, lines 24-25. Furthermore, Israel teaches a motor 1004 and gearbelt 1006 in fig. 10 and in column 17, lines 37-42 which meet the limitations of a cable partially wound around a spool.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652