DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on August 3, 2026 was received. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 15-20 were canceled. Claims 10 and 13-14 were amended. Claim 21 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued April 2, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 13-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 10, the recitation of “the detector” is unclear if the reference back is to one, some or all of the at least one detector. For purposes compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the at least one detector.
Claim Interpretation
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:
a spray control device in claim 10;
a device configured to receive the at least one spray pattern parameter from the spray detection system in claim 10.
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 10 is 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 claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lastowka on claims 1, 3 and 5 are withdrawn because the claims have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Scheer on claim 2 is withdrawn because the claim has been canceled.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Harmon on claims 4, 6 and 8-9 are withdrawn because the claims have been canceled.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Bangma on claim 7 is withdrawn because the claim has been canceled.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Maurer on claims 10-11 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka, Maurer and Huang on claims 12-14 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
Please consider the following.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka (US 2003/0221615) in view of Maurer (US 2023/0025803), Osawa (US 2005/0211162) and Scheer (US 2006/0081039).
In regards to claims 10 and 21, 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) positioned on a spindle (44, 144) which rotate, where the spray of the coating guns are adjustable (fig. 2-4, 7-8; para. 44-45, 51-52, 55, 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);
a 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, and the detection of the sprays from the two or more spray guns and where the region of overlap has a width w given by 0.05d<w<0.25d, where d is the diameter of the golf ball.
However, Maurer teaches spray nozzles (32) maybe selected to provide shapes full 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).
Lastowka and Maurer do not explicitly teach the detector detects sprays from two/both of the plurality of the coating guns.
However, Osawa teaches a monitor unit (31) that provides monitoring of spray of aerosol from a pair of nozzles (15) (fig. 5; para. 41, 68-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the monitor unit of the pair of nozzles of Osawa onto the spray detection system of Lastowka and Maurer because Osawa teaches it will provide uniform film formation (para. 71).
Lastowka, Maurer and Osawa do not explicitly teach the detector comprises a light sheet, and wherein the light sheet is positioned to monitor both spray patterns at a single cut-through plane, and the data indicative of at least one spray pattern parameter characterizes both of the sprays at the cut-through plane and detector is configured to monitor both spray patterns at a first cut-through plane at a position prior to the region of overlap and a second cut-through plane downstream of the first cut-through plane at a position after the two sprays begin to overlap.
However, Scheer teaches a spray characterization and control system comprising a light source (1) and a detector (5) that are used to monitor a spray pattern. Scheer teaches the formation of a light sheet, through which the droplets from an atomizer (3) pass. Scheer teaches scattering of light from the droplets forms data that is delivered to computer (fig. 17-20; para. 93-100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the spray characterization and control system of Scheer onto the spray detection system of Lastowka, Maurer and Osawa because Scheer teaches it will provide detection of deviations in spray patterns (para. 34-35).
With regards to the claimed the spray pattern having the region of overlap has a width w given by 0.05d<w<0.25d, where d is the diameter of the golf ball, monitor both spray patterns at a single cut-through plane and the data indicative of at least one spray pattern parameter characterizes both of the sprays at the cut-through plane, are a matter of intended use of the claimed system, which the prior art combination of Lastowka, Maurer, Osawa 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka, Maurer, Osawa and Scheer as applied to claims 10 and 21 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2022/0212219).
In regards to claims 13-14, Lastowka, Maurer, Osawa and Scheer as discussed but do not explicitly teach the cut-through plane is at a position prior to the region of overlap and the at least one spray parameter is a coordinate spacing between the spray patterns produced by the two spray guns.
However, Huang teaches a first spray (31) and a second sprayer (32) which apply paint in an overlapping manner. Huang 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 Huang onto the apparatus of Lastowka, Maurer, Osawa and Scheer because Huang teaches it will produce an unique visual effect (para. 46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Lastowka nowhere discloses or suggests that the coating control system that is "positioned" to "monitor both spray patterns at a single cut-through plane," or that data "characterizes both of the sprays at the cut-through plane." as recited in amended claim 10. Lastowka discloses a single light beam through a single spray (i.e., FIG. 7) but nowhere discloses a "cut-through plane" that intersects two spray patterns.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Applicant’s arguments, see amended claims filed August 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lastowka and Maurer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lastowka, Maurer, Osawa and Scheer as discussed above..
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights