DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-15 are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the reference to Klein fails to disclose “determining a set of received data values received in a pre-determined time interval”, and “determining, based on data values meeting the distance tolerance criterion, at least one base value indicative of a distance between the sensor and the surface” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is brought to Figure 3 and column 3, line 51 to column 4, line 5, wherein an optical sensor and processor are shown to obtain, during a spray application (applicant’s time interval), a real-time flow of data in regards to the distance and angle of the spray gun. This data is then analyzed in real-time to determine if the data points are in compliance with predetermined operating or application parameters (applicant’s at least one base value). A visual readout is provided to an operator based upon whether the required distance and angle parameters are within optimal ranges (applicant’s distance tolerance criterion). Therefore, the reference to Klein is understood to anticipate the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,868,840 to Klein et al.
In regards to claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-13, Klein discloses and shows in Figures 1-3, a system and method of determining a distance between a distance sensor (56, 58) connected to a spray applicator (10) and a surface during spray coating of the surface (col. 1, ll. 7-50), the method comprising:
receiving, over time, from the sensor (56, 58), data values indicative of a distance between the sensor and a detected object (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5);
obtaining a distance tolerance criterion for a valid distance value to be met (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein raw data is provided in real-time to a processor to be analyzed and determine “overall efficiency and compliance with standards or other operating parameters”; the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
applying the distance tolerance criterion to the received values (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
determining a set of received data values received in a pre-determined time interval (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein raw data is provided in real-time to a processor to be analyzed and determine “overall efficiency and compliance with standards or other operating parameters”);
determining, based on data values meeting the distance tolerance criterion, at least one base value indicative of a distance between the sensor and the surface (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein raw data is provided in real-time to a processor to be analyzed and determine “overall efficiency and compliance with standards or other operating parameters”; the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
making the base value available for output by the electronic data processor (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the device includes a feedback/control display (62)).
[claim 2] wherein the distance tolerance criterion to be applied to a received value is determined on at least one previous received value (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
[claim 3] wherein the distance tolerance criterion is a fixed difference value (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
[claim 4] the distance tolerance criterion is further based on a time interval between the received value and the previous received value (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the data is analyzed in real-time);
[claim 5] wherein received values not meeting the distance tolerance criterion are not included in the determined set (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein non-optimized distances and orientations are not used for the spray application);
[claim 7] wherein the distance criterion comprises a requirement that the data values based on which the base value is to be determined is a pre-determined amount of the highest values in the determined set (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein raw data is provided in real-time to a processor to be analyzed and determine “overall efficiency and compliance with standards or other operating parameters”);
[claim 8] wherein the pre-determined amount is based on the total amount of data values in the set (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein raw data is provided in real-time to a processor to be analyzed and determine “overall efficiency and compliance with standards or other operating parameters”);
[claim 9] further comprising receiving a distance compliance criterion, the method further comprising: comparing the base value to the distance compliance criterion; if the base value complies with the distance compliance criterion, providing a first signal value at an output of the electronic data processor (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application); and if the base value does not comply with the distance compliance criterion, providing a second signal value at the output of the electronic data processor (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5; wherein the data is analyzed to determine if a nozzle distance and orientation is optimized for the spray application);
[claim 12] spray applicator (10) for a coating fluid arranged to spray the coating fluid from a spray orifice in a spray direction, wherein: the distance sensor senses distance in a sensing direction; and the device is connected to the applicator such that the spray direction is substantially parallel to the sensing direction (Figures 1-3) (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5);
[claim 13] wherein a sensing line from the distance sensor in the sensing direction is offset relative to a spray line from the spray orifice in the spray direction (Figures 1-3) (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein.
In regards to claim 6, Klein differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the apparatus, wherein the base value is at least one of a median or an average of the data values in the set.
However, statistical analysis of data values, in particular to obtain median or average values, is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Klein to include the median or average values discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known statistical analysis, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 11, Klein discloses and shows in Figures 1-3, a paint gun incorporating a laser distance sensor; wherein an electronic data processor is further arranged to compare the base value to the distance compliance criterion (col. 1, ll. 7-50; col. 3, ll. 50 to col. 4, ll. 5).
Klein differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the apparatus further comprising a first actuator and a second actuator connected to an output of the electronic data processor, wherein if the base value complies with the distance compliance criterion, providing a first signal value at the output of the electronic data processor for actuating the first actuator; and if the base value does not comply with the distance compliance criterion, providing a second signal value at the output of the electronic data processor for actuating the second actuator.
However, automated or computer-controlled actuators and robotic arms are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Klein to include the plurality of actuator devices discussed above for the advantage of obtaining optimized distance and orientation parameters through automated means, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 14-15, Klein discloses and shows in Figures 1-3, a paint gun incorporating a laser distance sensor, wherein [claim 14] and the sensing line is offset from the major axis of the elliptical cross-section (Figures 1-3); [claim 15] and the sensing line is offset from the minor axis of the elliptical cross-section (Figures 1-3).
Klein differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the apparatus wherein the spray orifice is arranged to emit the coating fluid in a spray cone having an elliptical cross-section.
However, fluid spray applicators that have a variable spray orifice to allow a desired spray pattern to be achieved, are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Klein to include the spray pattern discussed above for the advantage of utilizing a desired, well-known spray pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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 M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights