CTFR 18/298,436 CTFR 85139 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 1-6 and 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (apparatus/ product) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4 October 2024 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 19-23,27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Petterson et al. (US 2012/0219699) . Regarding Claims 20-23,27, and 29, Pettersson et al. (US 2012/0219699) teach a method for delivering a substantially uniformly coating to a substrate surface, the method comprising: detecting in real time at least one condition parameter with a condition parameter detector to form a detected condition parameter value ( e.g. angle of applicator, distance of applicator, ambient temperature, humidity, viscosity) (Claim 7; [0032,0039,0045-0046,0054,0057-0058,0059,0071,0091,0093-0094,0096,0138,0152,0154,0156,0191,0193]), said condition parameter detector in communication with a controller (Abstract; [0046,0054,0058,0071,0096,0160,0191]), said detected condition parameter value consisting of at least one of ambient temperature, substrate temperature, humidity, angle of applicator relative to substrate, distance of applicator spray head from substrate surface, applicator air pressure, paint viscosity, and coating material composition (Claim 7; [0032,0039,0045-0046,0054,0057-0058,0059,0071,0091,0093-0094,0096,0318,0152,0154,0156,0191,0193]); accessing a condition parameter value range from a condition parameter memory (Claim 1; [0036,0096,0133-0134,0138,0142,0174,0179,0184]); comparing the condition parameter value range from the condition parameter memory to the detected condition parameter value to form a compared detected condition parameter signal (inherent in “feedback,” [0096]), also inherent in automatic adjusting expelling characteristics dependent on spatial reference and characteristics, including temperature and substrate shape ( i.e. part surface contour/shape) (Abstract; [0030,0039-0041]), since automatic adjusting necessarily requires comparing actual characteristics to set characteristics; sending the compared condition parameter signal to a controller (inherent in feedback) (Abstract; [0030,0046,0054,0058,0071,0096,0160,0191]); detecting in real time at least one substrate parameter with a substrate parameter detector to form a detected condition parameter value, said substrate parameter detector in communication with the controller, said detected substrate parameter value consisting of at least one of a part surface contour, a part surface shape, and a part dimension [0030,0071,0191]; accessing a substrate parameter value range from a substrate parameter memory (Abstract; [0038-0039,0051,0089,0133]; comparing the substrate parameter value range from the substrate parameter memory to the detected substrate parameter value to form a compared detected substrate parameter signal (“feedback,” [0096,0071]), automatic controls depending on target shape, etc. [0030]; sending the compared substrate parameter signal to the controller (‘feedback,” [0096,0071]; automatic adjusting dependent on spatial reference , temperature, part shape, etc. [0030]); inhibiting (also terminating) the release of a predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal (pulse timing, duration, and repetition) [0036,0052,0164]; initiating in real time release of a predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal (pulse timing, duration, and repetition) [0036,0052]; and delivering to the substrate surface in real time the predetermined amount of coating material released from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter value signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter value signal to form a substantially uniform coating on the substrate surface (pulse timing, duration, and repetition, where to start and stop spattering) [0036,0051-0052,0139,0152]. US’699 clearly envisions that a step comprising of inhibiting in real time the release of a predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal also includes inhibiting in real time the release of the predetermined amount of the coating material from the coating material applicator in response to a plurality of compared condition parameter value signals and further in response to a plurality of compared substrate parameter value signal signals ( e.g. stopping points, changes in flow rate [0036,0052,0131] ( e.g. controlling characteristics of an expelling nozzle means, including rate, pulse timing, duration, and repetition). Regarding Claim 19, US’699 further teaches determining a coating deposition rate to form a determined coating deposition rate of the coating material released from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal, and further in response to the determined coating deposition rate [0036,0053,0071,0127,0191] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-23,27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telleria et al. (US 2019/0093373) . Regarding Claims 29,27,23,20-22, Telleria et al. (U’373) teach a method for delivering a coating to a substrate surface, the method comprising: detecting in real time at least one condition parameter with a condition parameter detector [0028] to form a detected condition parameter value [0137,0143], said condition parameter detector in communication with a controller (Abstract; Fig. 3; [0028,0046,0063,0153], said detected condition parameter value consisting of at least one of ambient temperature, substrate temperature, humidity, angle (orientation) of applicator relative to substrate, distance of applicator spray head from substrate surface (proximity), viscosity, and coating material composition [0028,0043,0063,0069-0070,0093,0128,0131,0133,0137,0148]; accessing a condition parameter value range from a condition parameter memory (inherent in feedback of the automated process with a controller and sensors, including sending various measurements to a controller for real time updating of tool paths [0148], including machine learning algorithms in a system feedback to create better models for coating surfaces [0149]; see , also Claim 20 and paragraphs [0028,0046,0070,0093,0114,0115,0132,0148]; comparing the condition parameter value range from the condition parameter memory to the detected condition parameter value to form a compared detected condition parameter signal (feedback from sensors which send data to a controller; (Fig. 3; Claim 20; [0028]; sending the compared condition parameter signal to a controller (Fig. 3; Claim 20; [0063,0093,0114,0142]; detecting in real time at least one substrate parameter with a substrate parameter detector to form a detected condition parameter value, said substrate parameter detector in communication with the controller, said detected substrate parameter value consisting of at least one of a part surface contour (profile), a part surface shape, and a part dimension (scanning mapping by computer device of automated surface finishing system) [0058,0077,0079,0141]; accessing a substrate parameter value range from a substrate parameter memory [0079] (computational planner implemented by control system which utilizes a map to determine tool paths and/ or too parameters, including updating paths with updated local measurements necessarily includes accessing a substrate parameter value range from a substrate parameter memory); comparing the substrate parameter value range from the substrate parameter memory to the detected substrate parameter value to form a compared detected substrate parameter signal [0079] (computational planner implemented by control system which utilizes a map to determine tool paths and/ or too parameters, including updating paths with updated local measurements necessarily includes comparing substrate parameter value range from the substrate parameter memory to the detected substrate parameter value to form a compared detected substrate parameter signal; also, [0142] suggests control of coating to build up more coating on low spots and less on high spots, which indicates a comparison to determine “high” and “low” and control coating based on the comparison); sending the compared substrate parameter signal to the controller [0079] (updating paths with updated measurements); inhibiting (including terminating) the release of a predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal [0144]; initiating in real time release of a predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal [0144} (the system uses either force sensors or proximity sensors to ensure contact is made before coating is initiated (also requiring a comparison of measured value with “threshold” value); and delivering to the substrate surface in real time the predetermined amount of coating material released from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter value signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter value signal to form a coating on the substrate surface ( id. ). US’373 clearly envisions inhibiting in real time the release of the predetermined amount of coating material from the coating material applicator in response to not only a single compared condition parameter value signal and a single substrate parameter value signal but a plurality of such signals as the process updates and would be obvious to perform over a plurality of projects. US’373 fails to teach specifically forming “a substantially uniform coating on the substrate.” US’373. However, US’373 teaches smoothing out a coating to generate a planar or otherwise consistent profile on the substrate [0062,0082], building up coating on low spots and less coating on high spots as needed [0142], and suggests coating a reasonably level surface (Figs. 7a-7b) [0095]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’373 by forming a substantially uniform coating on the substrate, because US’373 would have suggested the general desirability of a level surface and ways of achieving it. Regarding Claim 19, US’373 teaches determining a coating deposition rate to form a determined coating deposition rate of the coating material released from the coating material applicator in response to the determined coating deposition rate [0110,0118] and controlling a number of spray parameters, including flow rate of coating to achieve a specific coating profile [0142,0147,0152]. The flow rate, among other variables can be tracked ( i.e. stored in memory and compared with a value) to determine when a nozzle or blade should be cleaned or changed (when to inhibit or terminate release of coating) [0156]. Also, US’373 teaches a sensor which monitors a variety of variables, including pressure, flow rate, mass rate, trigger position, and other parameters to set a flow rate [0171]. US’373 also teaches using a variety of sensor measurements to control the release of coating material ( see the rejection of Claim 29 above). Because US’373 suggests all of a compared substrate parameter, a compared condition parameter, and a coating deposition rate, as parameters which a controller uses to determine whether, when, and where to release or inhibit/ terminate a release of coating and at what rate, US’373 is considered to teach implicitly or to otherwise suggest determining a coating deposition rate of the coating material released from the coating material applicator in response to the compared substrate parameter signal and further in response to the compared condition parameter signal, and further in response to the determined coating deposition rate, because the controller uses all the recited forms of data to automatically determine whether to begin or stop coating and if coating, at what rate to deliver coating . Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 9 February 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 29 and to the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 29 and to the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 9 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument that US’699 fails to disclose limitations including “inhibiting in real time . . . in response to the compared condition parameter signal” (Remarks, p. 11), Applicant’s specification does not specifically describe requirements or detailed steps for “inhibiting in real-time at least one of an initial release of and a continued release of a predetermined amount of coating material.” Instead the specification describes “real-time” aspects as follows: “real-time composition of” [0036],”feedback and real-time monitoring to alert a human user or a robot” [0063], “In real time, the detector further assesses condition parameters and/or further substrate parameters” [0074], variance in coating material composition may be detected from the coating material in real time” [0074],” During operation and release of coating material, for example, in real time, the applicator further assesses acceleration and/or velocity of coating material flow, flow rates, etc,” [0075]; “The coating material release can be continuously monitored, in real time, by the applicator, at least via stereo cameras providing real time information to the controller, including spray stream angles, applicator angle, distance, velocity, acceleration, pressure, to make certain that condition parameters and substrate parameters are maintained within acceptable and memory-accessed values, ranges, limits, etc.” [0075],” that is, changing conditions impacting substrate or condition parameters will be recognized by the coating material applicator in real time by one or more integrated cameras, sensors, detectors, etc. (or by one or more cameras, sensors, detectors located remotely from the coating material applicator, but that are in communication with the coating material applicator. Such sensed changes in substrate and/or condition parameters are signaled to the coating material applicator display to alert an operator via visual (e.g., LED indicators on the integrated display; for example, an LCD screen), audible or vibratory alarms” [0079],” Error codes can be sent to appear on the display and the operator can take real-time corrective action by altering various coating material release delivery factors (e.g., flow rates, angles, distance, pressure, velocity, acceleration, etc.)” [0079]. Despite Applicant’s making much of the limitation “inhibiting in real-time,” etc., “real-time” operations in the specification are limited to detection, assessment, monitoring, and the like, and says nothing about “real-time” corrective actions. Instead, the information from real time monitoring can be passed to an operator or robot to perform the operations. There are also descriptions in the specification of a controller inhibiting an initiation of coating material flow ( e.g. [0050,0051,0053,0055]– which is interpreted as including not initiating coating material flow. However, the specification does not associate “real-time” with inhibiting. Therefore, “real-time inhibiting” is interpreted as combining real-time aspects, such as sensing, monitoring, assessment, data collection, etc. with described steps of “inhibiting release,” etc., and these effectuating or corrective steps can be carried out by a human operator or robot. To the same extent that the specification as originally filed might suggest some broad inhibiting in real time either an initial release or continued release by coupling sensors with operators, controllers, or robots that then perform actions based on the data, US’699 also teaches this. In response to Applicant’s argument that Telleria does not disclose the claimed releasing, and/ or initating release of, and/ or inhibiting release of, and or terminating release of coating material in response to both a compared condition parameter signal and a substrate parameter signal (Remarks, p. 13), it is not clear what distinction Applicant is attempting, since the claims at issue already recite “in response to.” Moreover, Applicant has not point out any specific error concerning Telleria. Conclusion No claim is allowed. 07-40 AIA 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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30. 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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. ALEXANDER M WEDDLE Examiner Art Unit 1712 /ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 2 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 3 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 4 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 5 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 6 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 7 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 8 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 9 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 10 Art Unit: 1712 Application/Control Number: 18/298,436 Page 11 Art Unit: 1712
Prosecution Insights