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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, and 10 were amended. Claims 3 and 9 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The statement in the previous Office Action regarding the Drawings submitted March 24, 2026 included a typographical error. The previous objection to the Drawings are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1-2 and 4, directed to the following informalities: the phrase “by means of ” are withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1-2 and 4 to replace with the word “by”.
The previous objections to claim 10, directed to the following informalities: the phrase “ the presence and/or absence” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 10.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “positioning device” , “device for detecting”, and “coating station” in claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220091599 A1 to Yocius (hereinafter Yocius) is being maintained.
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220091599 A1 to Yocius (hereinafter Yocius) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 1, Le Strat teaches the system (1) for the automatic coating of objects (13) with coating material wherein the system (1) comprises the following:
a coating station (2) having at least one coating gun (4, 6) for the spraying of coating material
a conveyor mechanism (12) for transport of objects (13) to be coated through the coating area (area of coating station surrounding 13) ; and a device (8, 10) for detecting a size ( dimensions in paragraph 70), geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated in a monitored area ( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) situated upstream - seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12) of the coating station (2) , wherein the coating station (2) is allocated a positioning device (movable carriage, para. 63) for positioning of the at least one coating gun (4, 6) relative to the coating area ( coating region of object 13 which receives coating) , and wherein a control device ( electronic control unit, ECU par. 63) is further provided which is designed to control the positioning device (movable carriage, para. 63) of the coating station (2) as a function of the detected size, (dimensions in paragraph 70) geometry and/or contour of the object (13) to be coated after a delay, wherein: the device ( 8, 10) for detecting a size(dimensions in paragraph 70) , geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated comprises a first optical detection system (8) in the form of at least one first laser scanning system ( laser system including beams 8,10) designed to scan and/or sweep the at least one area of the object (13) to be coated in the monitored area( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) via at least one first laser beam (P8) in order to measure it, wherein the at least one first laser beam (P8) of the first laser scanning system runs in a first direction relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12) which runs perpendicular ( angles A8 and A10 are zero in paragraph 100) to the conveying direction (F1 transport direction) , and the device (8,10) for detecting a size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated comprises at least one second optical detection system (10) in the form of at least one second laser scanning system (10) designed to scan and/or sweep the at least one area of the object (13) to be coated in the monitored area( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) of the device (8, 10) or detecting a size, geometry and/or contour, in a line or grid pattern, by at least one second laser beam (P10), in order to measure it( a size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13)). (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98, 100.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach the at least one second laser beam (P10) of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the second direction runs obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12).
Yocius is directed to a system for manufacturing including an applicator to distribute one or more fluids on a substrate.
Yocius teaches multiple sensors can be used and scans from sensor(s) may be used during the manufacturing process at any angle relative to the direction of travel. (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 36, 61-64, 66, and 74; and Figs. 1-5.)
Yocius teaches the sensing system may employ multiple cameras and lasers for an increased field of view or to render a three-dimensional image and multiple scans and multiple axes. (See Yocius, Fig. 2 and paragraph 66-67 and 73.)
Yocius teaches the multiple sensors of varying types may be used from multiple locations measuring common and/or different parameters to ensure proper control of the various systems and subsystems. (See Yocius, Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 73-74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the second direction runs obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for best monitoring the manufacturing process of distributing fluids on a substrate and/or to stitch multiple images or an image with multiple types of imaging together from multiple angles to generate a three-dimensional image or from multiple types of imaging to form a composite image, as a result-effective variable, in order to collect impactful data and use a second sensor of a second sensor system at a different angle from the first sensor system to ensure proper control and accuracy of a first sensor system. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 64, 66-67, and 73-74; and Figs. 1-5 and Annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
651
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally regarding claim 1, Le Strat teaches the angle (A10) of the second beam (P10) can be modified. (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1, 9-11, paragraphs 41-44, 64-65, 95, 100.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an acute angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
Yocius teaches scans from a sensor may be used during the manufacturing process at any angle relative to the direction of travel. (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 64, 66, and 74; and Figs. 1-5.)
Yocius teaches the sensing system may employ multiple cameras and lasers for an increased field of view or to render a three-dimensional image and multiple scans and multiple axes. (See Yocius, Fig. 2 and paragraph 66-67 and 73.)
Yocius teaches the multiple sensors of varying types may be used from multiple locations measuring common and/or different parameters to ensure proper control of the various systems and subsystems. (See Yocius, Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 73
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one second laser beam of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an acute angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for best monitoring the manufacturing process of distributing fluids on a substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to collect impactful data and use a second sensor of a second sensor system at a different angle from the first sensor system to ensure proper control and accuracy of a first sensor system. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 64, 66-67, and 73-74; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 2, Le Strat teaches the at least one first laser scanning system ( laser system including beams 8,10) is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to vertically sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area in a line or grid pattern by the at least one first laser beam (8). (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98.) Examiner is considering emitting an angular beam over an angular sector equivalent to monitor area in line or grid pattern.
Regarding claim 4, Le Strat does not teach the at least one second laser scanning system is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area by the at least one second laser beam in a direction oblique to the conveying direction.
Yocius teaches multiple sensors can be used and scans from sensor(s) may be used during the manufacturing process at any angle relative to the direction of travel. (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 64, 66, and 74; and Figs. 1-5.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the at least one second laser scanning system is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area by the at least one second laser beam in a direction oblique to the conveying direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for the second laser module, as a result-effective variable, in order to information provide the optimal distribution of the fluids on the substrate relative to the direction of travel of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Yocius, Abstract, paragraphs 15,19, 64, 66, and 74; and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 5, Le Strat teaches at least one coating gun is aligned perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, and wherein the positioning device (carriage) is designed to horizontally move the at least one coating gun relative to the coating area perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism; and/or wherein the positioning device (robot) is designed to vertically move the at least one coating gun
Regarding claim 6, Le Strat teaches the coating station (2) comprises a plurality of coating guns (sprayer) arranged vertically one above the other, wherein the coating guns (sprayer) are each oriented toward the coating area (coating region of object 13 which receives coating) and are horizontally and/or vertically movable relative to each other and relative to the coating area. (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220091599 A1 to Yocius (hereinafter Yocius) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180065135 A1 to Linares (hereinafter Linares) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Le Strat teaches the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell, wherein the coating station is arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell.
Linares is directed to paint spray operation.
Linares teaches the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell (manufacturing space enclosed by circular extending main portion 56), wherein the coating station ( 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80) arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell (manufacturing space enclosed by circular extending main portion 56). (See Linares, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 2, 32, 35-36, and 40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell, wherein the coating station is arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell, because Linares teaches this configuration is able to maximize the percentage of spray being applied to each unique configuration or substrate and effectively isolate, capture, remove, and recycle the atomized overspray. (See Linares, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 2, 32, 35-36, and 39-41.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20220091599 A1 to Yocius (hereinafter Yocius) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180065158 A1 to Phelps et al (hereinafter Phelps) is maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Le Strat does not explicitly teach the system comprises a device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in a second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area is a light barrier or a light curtain.
Phelps is directed to a conveyor for a substrate treatment operation.
Phelps teaches the system comprises a device (141) for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object (10) to be coated in a second monitored area (101) located upstream of the first monitored area (109) in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area (101) located upstream of the first monitored area (109) is a light barrier or a light curtain (141). (See Phelps, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 30-31 and 53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in a second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area is a light barrier or a light curtain, because Phelps teaches this device allows the product to pass through an entrance, but triggers a safety stop when objects that do not fit under the curtain are detected for safety reasons, thus allowing the conveyor to operate more safely and efficiently . (See Phelps, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraphs 26, 30-31, 53, 61-62, 64-69, and 72.)
The previous rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190258225 A1 to Link et al (hereinafter Link) is being maintained.
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190258225 A1 to Link et al (hereinafter Link) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 1, Le Strat teaches the system (1) for the automatic coating of objects (13) with coating material wherein the system (1) comprises the following:
a coating station (2) having at least one coating gun (4, 6) for the spraying of coating material
a conveyor mechanism (12) for transport of objects (13) to be coated through the coating area (area of coating station surrounding 13) ; and a device (8, 10) for detecting a size ( dimensions in paragraph 70), geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated in a monitored area ( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) situated upstream - seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12) of the coating station (2) , wherein the coating station (2) is allocated a positioning device (movable carriage, para. 63) for positioning of the at least one coating gun (4, 6) relative to the coating area ( coating region of object 13 which receives coating) , and wherein a control device ( electronic control unit, ECU par. 63) is further provided which is designed to control the positioning device (movable carriage, para. 63) of the coating station (2) as a function of the detected size, (dimensions in paragraph 70) geometry and/or contour of the object (13) to be coated after a delay, wherein: the device ( 8, 10) for detecting a size(dimensions in paragraph 70) , geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated comprises a first optical detection system (8) in the form of at least one first laser scanning system ( laser system including beams 8,10) designed to scan and/or sweep the at least one area of the object (13) to be coated in the monitored area( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) via at least one first laser beam (P8) in order to measure it, wherein the at least one first laser beam (P8) of the first laser scanning system runs in a first direction relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12) which runs perpendicular (angle A8 is 0 see paragraph 100 and Fig. 1.) to the conveying direction (F1 transport direction) , and the device (8,10) for detecting a size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated comprises at least one second optical detection system (10) in the form of at least one second laser scanning system (10) designed to scan and/or sweep the at least one area of the object (13) to be coated in the monitored area( portion receiving rays of 8 and 10) of the device (8, 10) or detecting a size, geometry and/or contour, in a line or grid pattern, by at least one second laser beam (P10), in order to measure it( a size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13)). (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98, 100.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a different second direction relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism from the first direction which runs obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
Link is directed to a system for applying real-time inspections of objects on a transport.
Link teaches use of a second laser module can be changed manually or dynamically to optimize the viewing angle, field of view, or working distance in order to minimize occlusions or shadows to get the best scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 72, 74, 77-78, 81, 93, 152, 157, 165, 201, and Figs. 12-13 and 201.)
In addition, Link teaches overlapping scanning of the object may be used which provides reduced noise inherent in translation of the object, conveyor, and scanner which increases sampling resolution and reduction in the total scan error by minimizing data variance. (See Link, Abstract, paragraph 152, and Figs. 12-13.)
Link teaches scanning the laser module at non-orthogonal angles to the direction of motion of the platen or conveyor carrying the object. (See Link, paragraph 44.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a different second direction relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism from the first direction which runs obliquely (non-orthogonal) to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for the second laser module, as a result-effective variable, in order to calibrate information about the target object which enables further scans to provide the optimal distribution of the fluids on the substrate relative to the direction of travel of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
Additionally, regarding claim 1, Le Strat does not teach the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an acute angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
Link teaches use of a second laser module can be changed manually or dynamically to optimize the viewing angle, field of view, or working distance in order to minimize occlusions or shadows to get the best scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an acute angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for the second laser module, as a result-effective variable, in order to information provide the optimal inspection of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
Regarding claim 2, Le Strat teaches the at least one first laser scanning system ( laser system including beams 8 ) is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to vertically sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area in a line or grid pattern by the at least one first laser beam (8). (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98.) Examiner is considering emitting an angular beam over an angular sector equivalent to monitor area in line or grid pattern.
Regarding claim 3, Le Strat teaches the at least one second laser beam (10) of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an obtuse angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism. (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98.) Examiner is considering emitting an angular beam over an angular sector of up to 270o at least one second laser scanning system runs at an obtuse angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
Regarding claim 4, Le Strat does not teach the at least one second laser scanning system is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area by the at least one second laser beam in a direction oblique to the conveying direction.
Link teaches use of a second laser module can be changed manually or dynamically to optimize the viewing angle, field of view, or working distance in order to minimize occlusions or shadows to get the best scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the at least one second laser scanning system is designed as a polar measuring laser scanning system to sweep and/or scan the at least one area of the object to be coated in the monitored area by the at least one second laser beam in a direction oblique to the conveying direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for the second laser module, as a result-effective variable, in order to information provide the optimal inspection of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
Regarding claim 5, Le Strat teaches at least one coating gun is aligned perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, and wherein the positioning device (carriage) is designed to horizontally move the at least one coating gun relative to the coating area perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism; and/or wherein the positioning device (robot) is designed to vertically move the at least one coating gun
Regarding claim 6, Le Strat teaches the coating station (2) comprises a plurality of coating guns (sprayer) arranged vertically one above the other, wherein the coating guns (sprayer) are each oriented toward the coating area (coating region of object 13 which receives coating) and are horizontally and/or vertically movable relative to each other and relative to the coating area. (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98.)
Regarding claim 9, Le Strat teaches the angle (A10) of the second beam (P10) can be modified. (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1, 9-11, paragraphs 41-44, 64-65, 95, 100.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second laser scanning system runs at an acute angle relative to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190258225 A1 to Link et al (hereinafter Link) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180065135 A1 to Linares (hereinafter Linares) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Le Strat teaches the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell, wherein the coating station is arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell.
Linares is directed to paint spray operation.
Linares teaches the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell (manufacturing space enclosed by circular extending main portion 56), wherein the coating station ( 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80) arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell (manufacturing space enclosed by circular extending main portion 56). (See Linares, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 2, 32, 35-36, and 40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system comprises at least one coating booth or coating cell, wherein the coating station is arranged at least partially within the at least one coating booth or coating cell, because Linares teaches this configuration is able to maximize the percentage of spray being applied to each unique configuration or substrate and effectively isolate, capture, remove, and recycle the atomized overspray. (See Linares, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 2, 32, 35-36, and 39-41.)
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190258225 A1 to Link et al (hereinafter Link) and US Pat. Pub. No 20020182335 A1 to Coulibaly et al (hereinafter Coulibaly) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 8, Le Strat teaches a method for automatic coating of objects (13) with coating material, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
conveying at least one object to be coated by a conveyor mechanism (12) along a transport path through a coating area (area of coating station surrounding 13) of a coating station (2) ;
wherein the method further comprises: detecting a size ( dimensions in paragraph 70), geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) to be coated in a second monitored area ( portion receiving rays of 10) situated in the transport path of the at least one object and upstream - seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism (12) of the coating area (area of coating station surrounding 13),
wherein a positioning device (movable carriage, para. 63) positions and/or aligns of the at least one coating gun (4, 6) in the horizontal and/or vertical direction and/or in the conveying direction relative to the coating area ( coating region of object 13 which receives coating) ,
detecting the size ( dimensions in paragraph 70), geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object (13) being at least partially scanned by at least one first laser beam (8) running perpendicular to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism and by at least one second laser beam (10). (See Le Strat, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, 9-10, paragraphs 55, 64, 70, 95, 97-98, 100.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach detecting the size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object being at least partially scanned by at least one first laser beam … and by at least one second laser beam running obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism.
Link teaches use of a second laser module can be changed manually or dynamically to optimize the viewing angle, field of view, or working distance in order to minimize occlusions or shadows to get the best scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include detecting the size, geometry and/or contour of at least one area of an object being at least partially scanned by at least one first laser beam … and by at least one second laser beam running obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for the second laser module, as a result-effective variable, in order to information provide the optimal angle for inspection on the substrate relative to the direction of travel of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 152, 157, 165, and Figs. 12-13.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach detecting the presence or absence of an object to be coated in a first monitored area situated in the transport path of the at least one object to be coated and upstream seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism of the coating area.
Coulibaly is directed to a system and method for controlling triggering of spray guns in an automatic spray coating system.
Coulibaly teaches detecting the presence or absence of an object (part) to be coated in a first monitored area situated in the transport path of the at least one object to be coated and upstream (fe) seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism of the coating area. (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 9-10, 15-28, 50, 83 and Figs. 1-6D.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include detecting the presence or absence of an object to be coated in a first monitored area situated in the transport path of the at least one object to be coated and upstream seen in the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism of the coating area, because Coulibaly teaches this would optimize material usage. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 9-10, 15-28, 50, 79, 83 and Figs. 1-6D.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach wherein upon an object to be coated being detected as being present in the first monitored area, coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by at least one coating gun after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the first monitored area and the coating area.
Coulibaly teaches wherein upon an object to be coated being detected as being present in the first monitored area, coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by at least one coating gun after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed (conveyor speed) and a distance (D) between the first monitored area and the coating area. (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 63, 80-83 and Figs. 1-6D.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein upon an object to be coated being detected as being present in the first monitored area, coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by at least one coating gun after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed (conveyor speed) and a distance (D) between the first monitored area and the coating area, because Coulibaly teaches this would optimize material usage . (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 9-10, 15-28, 50, 63, 79, 80-83 and Figs. 1-6D.)
Le Strat does not explicitly teach wherein upon an object to be coated not being detected as being present in the first monitored area, no coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by the at least one coating gun, in particular after a delay and after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the first monitored area
Coulibaly teaches wherein upon an object to be coated not being detected as being present in the first monitored area, no coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by the at least one coating gun, in particular after a delay and after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the first monitored area and the coating area. (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 9-10, 15-28, 50, 83 and Figs. 1-6D.) Examiner is considering this to be consistent with the formula set with the formula and before the substrate passes the threshold set in the formula.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein upon an object to be coated not being detected as being present in the first monitored area , no coating material is sprayed in the direction of the coating area in the coating station by the at least one coating gun, in particular after a delay and after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the first monitored area
Le Strat does not explicitly teach after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the second monitored area and the coating area, such that when the object
Coulibaly is directed to a system and method for controlling triggering of spray guns in an automatic spray coating system.
Coulibaly teaches after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the second monitored area and the coating area, such that when the object
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include after a delay contingent on the conveyance speed and a distance between the second monitored area and the coating area, such that when the objectorientation to the surface of the object to be coated, because Coulibaly teaches this would optimize material usage . (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Coulibaly, Abstract, paragraphs 9-10, 15-28, 50, 79, 83 and Figs. 1-6D.)
The previous rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180043385 A1 to Le Strat et al (hereinafter Le Strat) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190258225 A1 to Link et al (hereinafter Link) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180065158 A1 to Phelps et al (hereinafter Phelps) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 10, Le Strat does not explicitly teach the system comprises a device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in a second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area is a light barrier or a light curtain.
Phelps is directed to a conveyor for a substrate treatment operation.
Phelps teaches the system comprises a device (141) for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object (10) to be coated in a second monitored area (101) located upstream of the first monitored area (109) in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area (101) located upstream of the first monitored area (109) is a light barrier or a light curtain (141). (See Phelps, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraph 30-31 and 53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in a second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area in the conveying direction of conveyor mechanism, wherein the device for detecting the presence and/or absence of the object to be coated in the second monitored area located upstream of the first monitored area is a light barrier or a light curtain, because Phelps teaches this device allows the product to pass through an entrance, but triggers a safety stop when objects that do not fit under the curtain are detected for safety reasons, thus allowing the conveyor to operate more safely and efficiently . (See Phelps, Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraphs 26, 30-31, 53, 61-62, 64-69, and 72.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Rejections over Le Strat et al. and Yocius
In the third paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that:
“A laser beam sweeping within an inclined plane is different and geometrically distinct from a beam running perpendicular to the conveyor axis. The Examiner's characterization of Le Strat as teaching a laser beam running perpendicular to the conveying direction oversimplifies this complex 3D geometry, and is not accurate. While Le Strat mentions a zero-angle variant where the measurement planes would be perpendicular to the conveyor axis (see paragraph [0100] of Le Strat), this variant would result in two perpendicular scanning planes, not the asymmetric perpendicular/oblique arrangement required by amended claim 1.
Examiner disagrees.
“Le Strat explicitly teaches the planes of sensors 8 and 10 are perpendicular to the axis of movement X12 of the conveyor 12…” (See Le Strat, paragraph 100 and Fig. 2)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the limitations of claim 1 directed to the “wherein the at least one first laser beam of the first laser scanning system runs in a first direction which runs perpendicular to the conveying direction”.
Applicant Representative’s arguments are not persuasive. Based on the Drawings and Specification of Le Strat a valid prima facie case of obviousness has been made with respect to this first limitation above.
In the last paragraph of page 11 to the first paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that:
“the proposed combination of Le Strat with Yocius in the Office Action is improper. Yocius is directed to a completely different technical application, involving monitoring of the distribution of fluids on a 2D substrate during foam board manufacturing (see the Abstract and paragraphs [0015] and [0021] of Yocius). The technical problems involved in this application are fundamentally different from Le Strat's 3D object geometry detection for controlling coating gun paths. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve Le Strat’s 3D coating system would not have had any motivation or rational reason to look to the art of 2D fluid monitoring by Yocius “
This argument is not persuasive. Both inventions are directed to the use of sensor technology in the application of a conveyed substrate receiving a liquid coating. Additionally, both inventions share classification in the same area of G05B19 Program-Control Systems.
Further, the characterization of Yocius as 2D fluid monitoring is incorrect. Yocius teaches the sensing system may employ multiple cameras and lasers for an increased field of view or to render a three-dimensional image and may utilize multiple scans and multiple axes. (See Yocius, Fig. 2 and paragraph 66-67 and 73.)
Yocius teaches the use of multiple sensors of varying types may be used from multiple locations measuring common and/or different parameters to ensure proper control of the various systems and subsystems. (See Yocius, Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 73-74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include at least one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the second direction runs obliquely to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper angle for best monitoring the manufacturing process of distributing fluids on a substrate and/or to stitch multiple images or an image with multiple types of imaging together from multiple angles to generate a three-dimensional image or from multiple types of imaging to form a composite image, as a result-effective variable, in order to collect impactful data and use a second sensor of a second sensor system at a different angle from the first sensor system to ensure proper control and accuracy of a first sensor system.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments in last paragraph of page 12, second paragraph of the Remarks Section that:
“ Moreover, Yocius's general teaching that scans "may be used during the manufacturing process at any angle relative to the direction of travel" (see paragraph [0066] of Yocius) provides no specific guidance or reason to fundamentally restructure Le Strat's purpose- built symmetrical system into the specific asymmetric scanning configuration recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner has provided no explanation on the record of why a person of ordinary skill would abandon Le Strat's coherent, symmetrical design, which is specifically configured to minimize shaded areas (see paragraph [0067] of Le Strat), and create an asymmetric system with one perpendicular beam and one oblique beam. Such a modification is not a predictable variation, and applying Yocius's general teaching in this manner constitutes only impermissible hindsight. The rejection lacks the required articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
The arguments Applicant’s Representative are not persuasive and these arguments by Applicant’s Representative fail to address the arguments presented previously where Yocius teaches multiple detectors and lasers may be used and which are repeated again below.
Yocius teaches the sensing system may employ multiple cameras and lasers for an increased field of view or to render a three-dimensional image and may utilize multiple scans and multiple axes. (See Yocius, Fig. 2 and paragraph 66-67 and 73.)
Yocius teaches multiple sensors of varying types may be used from multiple locations measuring common and/or different parameters to ensure proper control of the various systems and subsystems. (See Yocius, Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 73-74.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art of operating sensors for conveyed objects would reasonably be expected to understand how to use Yocius as a supplemental system.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Further, there is nothing in the claims to prevent the claim limitations being read on supplementary systems or for modification of the first direction and second direction to take place during routine optimization, maintenance, repair, or other related operations. Examiner considers the skill of an ordinary person in the area of sensing technology for program control of a conveying manufacturing system to be high. The skills of an ordinary artisan in sensing technology for program control would be reasonably expected to have knowledge and skills to combine multiple sensors and even multiple sensing systems.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and first optical detection system and second optical detection run simultaneously and operate together during a sensing operation ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further Applicant’s in regards to Applicants arguments concerning complexity, the orientation for the second beam relative to the first beam in the current application appears identical shape (i.e. flat fan shape) to the orientation of the second beam relative to the first beam in the Yocius reference. (See Annotated Fig 1 of current application with annotated Fig 2 of Yocius below for comparison).
In the third paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that:
“the discussion above has established that: (a) the combination of Le Strat and Yocius fails to disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1; and (b) there is no rational reason or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Le Strat to provide a dual optical (laser) detection system, with the specific asymmetric geometric arrangement recited in claim 1, on the basis of the teachings of Yocius “
Examiner disputes assertions a, b, for the reasons set forth above. In summary, a) Yocius does provide explicit teaching to supplement the system of Le Strat.
b) Applicant does not identify the person of ordinary skill of art and why there skills would be so limited that they could not combine known elements for a known motivation in the same field.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the device for detecting the size, geometry and/or contour of the at least one area of the object to be coated comprises a dual optical detection system consisting of a first optical detection system in the form of one first laser scanning system designed to scan and/or sweep one area of the object to be coated in the first monitored area via the one first laser beam in order to measure the size, geometry and/or the contour, wherein the one first laser beam of the first laser scanning system runs only in a first direction which runs only perpendicular to the conveying direction, and the device for detecting the size, geometry and/or contour of the at least one area of the object to be coated consisting of one second optical detection system in the form of one second laser scanning system designed to scan and/or sweep the one area of the object to be coated in the first monitored area of the device for detecting the size, geometry and/or contour, in a line or grid pattern, by the one second laser beam, in order to measure the size, geometry and/or contour, wherein the one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs only in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the second direction runs only obliquely at an acute angle to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A valid prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
2. Rejections over Le Strat et al. and Link et al.
In the second paragraph of page 13 of the Remarks Section, Applicant argues that:
“(a) the combination of Le Strat and Link fails to disclose or suggest all of the limitations of amended independent claim 1, due to Le Strat's failure to disclose "the at least one first laser beam of the first laser scanning system runs in a first direction which runs perpendicular to the conveying direction" and "the at least one second laser beam of the at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, wherein the second direction runs obliquely at an acute angle to the conveying direction of the conveyor mechanism" as recited in amended independent claim 1, and (b) there is no rational reason that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to undertake a fundamental restructuring of Le Strat' s bilaterial symmetric configuration of the measurement planes of sensors 8 and 10 into an asymmetric perpendicular/oblique arrangement as recited in independent claim 1, in view of the merely general teaching of Link of manually or dynamically changing the scanning angles of laser modules.”
Examiner disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art of operating sensors for conveyed objects would reasonably be expected to understand how to use Link as a supplemental system to Le Strat.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Link teaches a wide range of angles may be used to increase the accuracy of the scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 44, 72, 74, 77-78, 81, 93, 152, 157, 165, 201, and Figs. 12-13 and 201.)
Link teaches scanning the laser module at non-orthogonal angles to the direction of motion of the platen or conveyor carrying the object. (See Link, paragraph 44.) (Examiner is considering non-orthogonal angles to equivalent to oblique angles.)
In addition, Link teaches overlapping scanning of the object may be used which provides reduced noise inherent in translation of the object, conveyor, and scanner which increases sampling resolution and reduction in the total scan error by minimizing data variance. (See Link, Abstract, paragraph 152, and Figs. 12-13.)
Further, there is nothing in the claims to prevent the claims being run on supplementary systems or for modification of the first direction and second direction to take place during routine optimization, maintenance, repair, or other related operations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., at least one second optical detection system runs in a second direction that is different from the first direction, and first optical detection system and second optical detection run simultaneously and operate together during a sensing operation ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Link teaches use of a second laser module can be changed manually or dynamically to optimize the viewing angle, field of view, or working distance in order to minimize occlusions or shadows to get the best scans. (See Link, Abstract, paragraphs 72, 74, 77-78, 81, 93, 152, 157, 165, 201, and Figs. 12-13 and 201.)
Applicant has not provided any evidence (unexpected results, long felt need, etc.) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the invention as claimed based on the combination of references.
Applicant is invited to submit declaration of secondary considerations (unexpected results, long felt need, etc.) or any other evidence to support their position that the invention is non-obvious over the combination of references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Num. 5,298,277 to Hirose teaches shape detecting on moving substrates in a coating booth.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights