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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on March 27, 2026 was received. Claims 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 33-34 and 39-41 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued February 12, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The “evaluation unit” of claim 20 has been amended to recite structure (a microprocessor) and therefore no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 20 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because Applicant amended the recitation of the evaluation unit such that it no longer invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and therefore is not indefinite for the specification lacking structure.
The individual rejections of claims 23, 35, 33, 35, 36, 38 and 39-41 are also withdrawn because Applicant amended the claims or their parent claims to fix the various indefiniteness issues.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites “a painting robot” as part of the coating device of claim 20, however claim 20 as amended already recites a “coating robot”, and the specification does not appear to make allowances for two separate robots in a single “coating device” which claim 21 would now require, thus rendering the claim unclear. For the purposes of examination, the “painting robot” will be understood as referring to the previously recited “coating robot” from claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Reichler et al. (US 2018/0141070) on claims 20-24 and 44 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 20 to require the evaluation unit to have a microprocessor, which Reichler et al. does not explicitly teach.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 20-25, 27 and 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichler et al. in view of Unno (US 2017/0312922).
Regarding claim 20: Reichler et al. discloses a coating system having a plurality of components including application robots (20) having arms (22) and application units (24) which include a rotary atomizer (26) with a bell cup (28) (pars. 29-32, figure 1), where the components are all capable of experiencing faults or malfunctions (par. 8, 20), the system having at least one measuring device (40, 42, 50, 52) which are vibration sensors (par. 34) for determining resonant frequencies of the application units (24) and comparing the detected frequencies with ones typical of operation to determine if there is a fault such as a loosened bell cup or turbine defect which are various operating malfunctions (par. 41). Reichler et al. teaches that this step of determining if the vibrations are correct takes into account the natural resonant frequencies of various rotatable parts (par. 41) and that these frequencies can be determined in a calibration run such that the natural vibrational behavior (which is another way of saying vibration transmission properties) of the coating system can be determined and then afterwards during real processing compared to the detected vibrational behavior (par. 43), where part of this measurement includes “structure-borne sound” which is the vibration taking place on the robot arm of the handling unit (22) (par. 40). This detection and comparison step inherently requiring the use of some type of evaluation software or manual evaluation process (par. 41), however Reichler et al. fails to explicitly disclose an evaluation unit having a microprocessor doing this evaluation.
However, Unno discloses a similar vibration measurement device for a robot which uses a PC with a CPU and a computing unit (209) which is a microprocessor as part of the control device (20) for controlling the use of the robot (1) as well as the vibration analysis of the robot arm, which also utilizes finding the natural frequencies of the robot arm (i.e. vibration transmission properties) in order to have a baseline for in-situ vibration analysis such that an abnormal vibration can be easily determined (pars. 52-53, 78). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a control unit with a computing unit (209) like that of Unno for the system of Reichler et al. to perform the same process of detecting vibration based on deviation from a predetermined standard/natural vibration of the coating robot arm and rotary bell cup because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 21: Reichler et al. discloses that the purpose of the robots (20) is to paint vehicle bodies (12) (par. 26-29, figure 1).
Regarding claim 22: Reichler et al. discloses that the components which may malfunction include an application unit which is a rotary atomizer (26) with a rotary bell cup (28) guided by the robot (20), an air turbine for driving a shaft of the rotary atomizer (26) or the bell cup (28) itself (par. 41).
Regarding claim 23: Reichler et al. discloses that the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) can include any one or more of said devices at the locations shown, which include on the robot (40, 50) remote from the application unit (24) (par. 36-40, figure 1). Reichler et al. teaches that the mechanical vibrations emanating from the application unit (24) are picked up by the measuring devices (40, 50) such that they are done via the robot (pars. 38-40). As discussed above, both Reichler et al. and Unno disclose calibrating the apparatus including the robot itself (Reichler et al. par. 43, Unno par. 78) before real processing begins so that the natural vibration frequencies/properties are taken into account when the vibration sensors determine whether the measured vibration is abnormal when compared to the expected, pre-calibrated vibration.
Regarding claim 24: Reichler et al. disclose that the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) are capable of determining whether a mechanical fault lies with a loosened bell cup (28) or instead a turbine defect- both of which are rotatable components which would cause an unbalance when loosened or defected, with another example being wear of the application unit (24) (pars. 41-43).
Regarding claim 25: Reichler et al. teaches that the measurement devices (40, 42, 50, 52) can be acceleration sensors but fails to explicitly disclose that they are biaxial or triaxial accelerometers. However, Unno discloses a similar robot arm apparatus having an inertial sensor (32) which includes a tri-axial acceleration sensor and angular velocity sensor which is a gyro sensor or gyroscope (pars. 26, 75, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inertial sensor like that of Unno for the system of Reichler et al. because Unno teaches that it obtains more information and is less susceptible to influences of gravity and centrifugal force (par. 26).
Regarding claim 27: Reichler et al. shows a multi-axis robot (20) but does not explicitly discuss the exact configuration of the robot axes. However, Unno discloses a similar robot arm apparatus having a 6-axis robot (1) with each axis arranged kinematically in series one behind the other (O1-O6), each axis having a drive source (401-406) such as a motor and a housing (par. 55, figures 1-2), where the inertia sensor (32) can be installed on any of the arms (12-18) including the fourth, fifth and sixth (par. 74, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a robot like that of Unno for the system of Reichler et al. because Unno discloses that this type of robot is particularly useful for operating precision devices (par. 50 and 54) which would benefit the system of Reichler et al.
Regarding claim 37: Reichler et al. and Unno disclose the above combination in whic hthe control device (20) which can be either within or separate from the robot (1) allows for full control of the robot’s functionality (Unno pars. 51-52, figure 3).
Regarding claim 38: Reichler et al. and Unno disclose that the robot (20) is controlled to move the application units (24) by way of the robot arms (22) (Reichler et al. par. 30) and that the vibration sensing happens in accordance to this movement such that the movement pattern is determined along with the sensing (Reichler et al. par. 30, 35, Unno par. 53).
Regarding claims 39-40: Reichler et al. discloses that the rotatory atomizer (26) is rotated at specific speeds including above a critical speed which does not correspond to a resonance frequency, but still teaches that the speeds can increase throughout the coating process all during the measurement of the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) (par. 41). Reichler et al. does not explicitly state that it is done at one speed that is not in the range of resonance frequencies, nor that it happens successively at increasing speeds, but does suggest the measurement is continuously occurring such that it happens at all speeds (par. 41). Regardless, these limitations are considered to be intended use limitations which do not further limit the structure of the apparatus claims. In the instant case, the control unit of Reichler et al. and Unno is capable of controlling the atomizer (26) for vibrational measurement at any of its working speeds.
Regarding claim 41: Reichler et al. discloses that the rotary atomizer (26) passes through multiple speeds, such that it runs through a speed band, where the measurement devices (40, 42, 44, 45) are designed to determine the natural resonant frequencies of the various components within each speed band and monitor these frequencies to determine when an actual frequency is not in line with the natural frequency in order to determine a fault (pars. 41-42).
Regarding claim 42: Reichler et al. discloses that the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) measure the vibrations during the coating device in order to analyze the vibration signals and identify any and all faults (pars. 41-42).
Regarding claim 43: Reichler et al. shows in an example that one robot (20) may be active while another is not (figure 1), but does not explicitly disclose that the control unit only activates the measuring process if the operating malfunction could not be clearly identified in the coating process. However, all of the limitations of this claim are considered to be intended use limitations which do not further limit the apparatus claim. Reichler et al. is capable of selectively determining which components should be active, and determining whether to activate the measuring process if a fault was not clearly identified.
Regarding claim 44: Reichler et al. discloses that the application unit (24) can be assigned one or more of the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) such that in one embodiment it only has one (par. 34).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichler et al. and Unno as applied to claims 20-25, 27 and 37-44 above and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (2019/0160479).
Regarding claim 26: Reichler et al. and Unno fails to explicitly disclose an explosion-proof chamber. However, Yamauchi et al. discloses a similar rotary atomizer device for coating automobile devices which is designed to be explosion proof, having an explosion-proof housing (41) which houses electronics (par. 58-59, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an explosion-proof housing like that of Yamauchi et al. at least to house the measuring devices of Reichler et al. because Yamauchi et al. teaches that painting robots tend to use flammable liquids such as thinner in the painting solution, such that an explosion-proof structure is necessary to protect the components (pars. 58-59).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichler et al. and Unno as applied to claims 20-25, 27 and 37-44 above and further in view of Yoshida et al. (WO 2020198322).
Regarding claim 28: Reichler et al. and Unno fail to explicitly disclose that the application units (24) perform electrostatic coating with grounded areas. However, Yoshida et al. discloses a similar painting robot which uses an electrostatic rotary atomizer (54) having a high voltage generator (64) as well as a grounded substrate (14) and a control system (28) attached to the ground remote from the high voltage generator (64), the control system (28) including sensors (90) which include a vibration sensor (92) (pars. 13-14, 26, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrostatic coating device like that of Yoshida et al. for the system of Reichler et al. because Yoshida et al. teaches that this helps create a more uniform layer of paint or material (par. 3).
Claims 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichler et al. and Unno as applied to claims 20-25, 27 and 37-44 above and further in view of Haider et al. (US 2019/0168247).
Regarding claim 29: Reichler et al. and Unno fail to explicitly disclose exactly how the measurement devices analyze the vibration signals. However, Haider et al. discloses a similar spray unit (50) which includes a piezoelectric sensor (70) which detects oscillations in the nozzle, which are vibrations, and a data processing unit (80) connected to the piezoelectric sensor (70) which analyzes the vibration signal by detecting an amplitude (81) over a number of frequencies, as well as a maximum amplitude, in order to determine whether an oscillation is exceeding a predetermined threshold, in which case the control unit outputs a warning signal (101) (pars. 154-155, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an analysis methodology like that of Haider et al. for the system of Reichler et al. because Haider et al. shows that this is a well-known technique for analyzing vibration signals and simple use of a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 30: Reichler et al. discloses that the measuring devices (40, 42, 50, 52) do the analysis themselves, such that they utilize the sensor electronics structurally integrated within to perform the evaluation (par. 41).
Regarding claims 31-32: Reichler et al. and Haider et al. disclose the above combination, where Haider et al. teaches that the data processing unit (80) is structurally separate from the piezoelectric sensor (70), such that the software can be run within that data processing unit (80) which can correspond to the claimed evaluation unit, or within a comparison unit (90) which is connected to that data processing unit (80) (par. 154, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose any of the three possible locations for the value calculation- within the sensor, within the evaluation unit, and within a processor connected to the evaluation unit- because simply choosing from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 33: Reichler et al. and Haider et al. disclose the above combination, where the control unit (100) is configured to compare the signal to a predetermined value, and if a maximum value is exceeded, to output a warning signal (par. 155), which can be a sound or light indicator (par. 60).
Regarding claim 34: Reichler et al. discloses that the system can be monitored over time to develop a vibration profile, and by comparing the measured vibrations to that of the profile, conclusions can be drawn which can indicate when a component is nearing a failure point and should be fixed or replaced (pars. 20, 43-44). While Reichler et al. fails to explicitly disclose that this conclusion leads to a second warning signal being generated, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a warning like in the device of Haider et al. because Haider et al. teaches that this is a known means for alerting an operator when attention is required (par. 60).
Regarding claims 35-36: Reichler et al. and Haider et al. disclose the above warning signal (101) which can be considered either a maintenance signal or a stop signal when it leads to an emergency shutdown (Haider et al., par. 60, 155, figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Reichler et al. does not disclose determining robot-specific transmission properties between components and the vibration sensor or modifying vibration values based on those properties.
In response:
Applicant’s argument is incorrect. Although Reichler et al. does not explicitly discuss doing these preliminary calculations involving terms like “vibration transmission properties”, Reichler et al. nonetheless does state that the system includes calibration runs in order to determine standard vibration profile of the overall apparatus, which necessarily includes establishing a baseline of vibration transmission properties through the robot arm in order to determine what a “working” vibration profile looks like (par. 43). Unno, which has been brought into the rejection of claim 20 due to the new requirement of a microprocessor, also effectively does the same thing- a baseline natural frequency of vibration is found for each arm component, in order to determine what a non-standard deviation from this natural frequency would look like (par. 78). Both of those calibration processes perform the same function as claimed- they both determine what the vibration characteristics of the robot arm look like in a normal operating setting to establish a baseline vibration profile, and then when performing the in-process vibration sensing, they both use that baseline vibration profile to determine whether the sensed vibration is far enough away in order to be considered abnormal. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
5/11/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights