DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim s 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 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: spray control device in claims 1 and 10; a device configured to receive the at least one spray pattern parameter from the spray detection system in claims 1 and 10 ; a mechanism for adjusting a volumetric flow rate in claim 1; a mechanism for adjusting an atomization pressure in claim 1; a mechanism for turning off the spray gun in claim 1 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the term “ thereby ” in the aforementioned claims is improper. It is noted that the courts have held that functional “whereby” statements do not define any structure, and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Mason , 114 USPQ 127, 44 CCPA 937 (1957). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lastowka (US 2003/0221615) . In regards to claim 1 , Lastowka teaches a system comprising a spray system comprises a plurality of coating gun s (26, 326, 426 spray gun) which sprays a paint (S, spray paint in a spray pattern) towards a golf ball ( 52, 54, 56 , 352, 452), where the coating gun is capable of adjusting the spray of the coating gun (fig. 2-4, 7-8; para. 44-45, 51 -52 , 68- 69, 71 -74 ) ; an adjuster ( A , spray gun control device) modifies the spray properties / atomization parameters of the coating guns (fig. 7-8; para. 71-74, 77); spray detection system comprising a light emitting source ( 328 ) and a light receiver ( 329 ), the spray detection system is positioned between the coating guns and the golf ball (application area) , and provides non-invasive monitoring of the coating spray property (fig. 7-8; para. 70 -74); a microprocessor ( M , device) which receives signals/data from the spray detection system, compares to stored data and signals to the adjuster to change the spray properties/ atomization parameters of the coating guns (fig. 7-8; para. 50, 52 , 70-71, 74, 77 ) . In regards to claim 3 , Lastowka teaches a plurality of spindles 44, 46, and 48 which support and rotate the golf balls while in the application area (fig. 3-4; para. 55, 66, 83-85). In regards to claim 5 , Lastowka teaches the spray system adjusts spray parameters to adjust the spray pattern (para. 13, 17-18, 52, 68). 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. 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Scheer ( US 2006 / 0081039 ) . In regards to claim 2 , Lastowka does not explicitly teach t he spray pattern is generally elliptical with a major axis a satisfying 0.75d < a < 4d and a minor axis b satisfying 0.2d < b<1.5d , where d is the diameter of the golf ball . However, Scheer teaches a spray pattern which is monitored to detect deviation. Scheer teaches the spray pattern comprises an ellipsoid (para. 11, 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the monitor ellipsoid spray pattern of Scheer onto the coating guns of Lastowka because Scheer teaches it is a spray pattern with uniform density (para. 11). With regards to the claimed the spray pattern having a major axis a satisfying 0.75d < a < 4d and a minor axis b satisfying 0.2d < b<1.5d , where d is the diameter of the golf ball , are a matter of intended use of the claimed system, which the prior art combination of Lastowka and Scheer is capable of meeting, especially since the diameter of the golf ball is fix and Lastowka shows the spray pattern having different sizes (fig. 6-7, 9). It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114). Claims 4 , 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka as applied to claim s 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Harmon (US 2021/0323015) . In regards to claim 4 , Lastowka as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach t he corrective action is providing an alert to a user . However, Harmon teaches a system ( 58 ) that monito rs a spray operation . Harmon teaches spray quality sensors (50) that monitors spray quality parameters of a spray fan (48) from the nozzles ( 30a, 30b ) and the information is transmitted to spray quality controller s ( 74a, 74b ) (fig. 4; para. 30-31, 35 -36 ) . Harmon teaches a vehicle notification system ( 76 ) comprises visual, auditory, and tactile notifications and/or warnings (alerts) when the spray quality from the nozzles is outside a predefined range . Harmon teaches the spray quality controller communicates to the vehicle controller ( 60 ) and then to the notification system (fig. 4; para. 54-57) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spray quality controller s and notification system of Harmon onto the spray detection system and adjuster of Lastowka because Harmon teaches it will allow for reducing deviation from the predefine range for the spray parameters (para. 45) . In regards to claim s 6 and 8- 9 , Lastowka does not explicitly teach the spray pattern parameter is at least one of a flow parameter or shape parameter , a mechanism for adjusting a volumetric flow rate to a nozzle of the spray gun, and the one or more spray gun settings include the volumetric flow rate a mechanism for turning off the spray gun, and the one or more spray gun settings comprise an on/off status of the spray gun . However, Harmon teaches a first flow regulator ( 94a ) and a second flow regulator (94b) ( mechanism for adjusting a volumetric flow rate & mechanism for turning off the spray gun ) which are connected to a first nozzle (30a) and a second nozzle (30b). Harmon teaches the spray quality controller s control the flow regulator s to control flow to the nozzle based on detected spray parameters , where flow to a nozzle maybe restricted/stopped to reduce overlap (fig. 4; para. 49, 52-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flow regulator control flow to the nozzles of Harmon onto the coating guns of Lastowka because Harmon teaches it will allow for reducing deviation from the predefine range for the spray parameters (para. 45). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Bangma (US 2022 / 0062935 ) In regards to claim 7 , Lastowka does not explicitly teach a mechanism for adjusting an atomization pressure at a nozzle of the spray gun, and the one or more spray gun settings include the atomization pressure . However, Bangma teaches a spray nozzle assembly (300) comprising a pressurized fluid source (340 / 430/ 630 ) that delivers compressed air at a selected pressure level . Bangma teaches air flow control is provided by control valve ( 407/ 607) and the control valves are controlled a controller (750) , in order to maintain a desired fluid/air pressure to the spray nozzles (fig. 3 -7 ; para. 36 -39) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the pressurized air flow controlled by the control valve of Bangma onto the coating guns of Lastowka because Bangma teaches it will aid in applying liquid in an uniform and controlled manner (para. 42). Claim s 10 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka (US 2003/0221615) in view of Maurer ( US 2023 / 0025803 ) . In regards to claim 1 0 , Lastowka teaches a system comprising a spray system comprises : a plurality of coating guns (26, 30, 326, 426, two or more spray guns) which sprays a paint (S, spray paint in a spray pattern) towards a golf ball ( 52, 54, 56 , 352, 452), where the spray of the coating gun s are adjustable (fig. 2-4, 7-8; para. 44-45, 51-52, 68-69, 71-74); an adjuster ( A , spray gun control device) modifies the spray properties/ atomization parameters of the coating guns (fig. 7-8; para. 71-74, 77); spray detection system comprising a light emitting source ( 328 ) and a light receiver ( 329 ), the spray detection system is positioned between the coating guns and the golf ball (application area) , and provides non-invasive monitoring of the coating spray property (fig. 7-8; para. 70-74); a microprocessor ( M , device) which receives signals/data from the spray detection system, compares to stored data and signals to the adjuster to change the spray properties/ atomization parameters of the coating guns (fig. 7-8; para. 50, 52, 70-71, 74, 77). Lastowka does not explicitly teach the spray patterns of the two or more spray guns are generally conical and have a region of overlap in the application area, wherein the region of overlap has a width w given by 0.05 d< w < 0.25d, where d is the diameter of the golf ball . However, Maurer teaches spray nozzles (32) maybe selected to provide shapes f ull cone, hollow cone, flat fan, or any combination of cone and fan (para. 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spray nozzles that provide spray pattern such as full cone of Maurer onto the coating guns of Lastowka because Maurer teaches it will allow for control of the overlap (para. 32 ). With regards to the claimed the spray pattern having the region of overlap has a width w given by 0.05 d< w < 0.25d, where d is the diameter of the golf ball , are a matter of intended use of the claimed system, which the prior art combination of Lastowka and Maurer is capable of meeting, especially since the diameter of the golf ball is fix and Lastowka shows the spray pattern having different sizes (fig. 6-7, 9). It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114). In regards to claim 11 , Lastowka and Maurer as discussed, but Lastowka does not explicitly teach the spray detection system comprises two or more detectors, at least one for each of the two or more spray guns . However, Maurer teaches a plurality of spray nozzles (32), where each spray nozzle has a spray monitoring sensor (30) (fig. 1; para. 27, 33, 35-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spray monitoring sensor for each spray nozzle of Maurer onto the spray detection system and coating guns of Lastowka because Maurer teaches it will improve accuracy (para. 36) . Claim s 12 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Maurer as applied to claims 10-11 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2022/0212219) . In regards to claim 12 , Lastowka and Maurer as discussed, where Lastowka teaches a plurality of spindles 44, 46, and 48 which support and rotate the golf balls while in the application area (fig. 3-4; para. 55, 66, 83-85). Lastowka and Maurer do not explicitly teach the region of overlap is coincident with an area surrounding the great circle lying in the plane that is orthogonal to the axis of rotation . However, H uang teaches a first spray (31) and a second sprayer (32) which apply paint in an overlapping manner . H uang teaches the area of overlap is perpendicular to the axis of rotation (fig. 1, 4 , 10-12 ; para. 32 , 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spray overlap of H uang onto the coating guns of Lastowka and Maurer because H uang teaches it will produce an unique visual effect (para. 46). In regards to claim 13-14 , Lastowka, Maurer and H uang as discussed, where Maurer teaches the spray nozzles provide shapes f ull cone, hollow cone, flat fan, or any combination of cone and fan and the spray monitoring sensors are used to control spray pattern and overlap of the spray pattern of the spray nozzles in order to achieve the selected applicator pattern (para. 32) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Binu Thomas whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1295 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Binu Thomas/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717