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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telleria (U.S. 2019/0093373) in view of Blendinger (U.S. 2014/0130576).
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 21 Telleria discloses a system/tip wear system/computer implemented method (the rejection of claim 1, the apparatus claim, includes all limitations found in the method and tip wear system claim) comprising:
a fluid spray gun (figures 12 and 13, spray gun 1210) comprising a spray tip (1240) having a tip orifice (producing the spray shown in figure 12);
a pump (paragraph 0118, pumping fluid through lines 432) configured to pump fluid along a flow path to the fluid spray gun (paragraph 0118); and
a monitoring system (paragraph 0118, using the pressure sensors to monitor the pressure along the fluid line) comprising one or more processors (paragraphs 0043 and 0110, including pressure sensors and flow sensors, the system having processors to process the data from the sensors) the monitoring system configured to: obtain data indicative of a flow rate of the fluid along the flow path (paragraphs 0110 and 0118);
obtain data indicative of a pressure of the fluid along the flow path (paragraphs 0110 and 0118);
control a display screen to generate a display based on the tip wear metric (paragraph 0158). Telleria fails to disclose determining a tip wear metric indicative of a wear of the spray tip based at least on the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path and the data indicative of the pressure of the fluid along the flow path. Telleria, paragraph 0158, discloses displaying the war of the nozzle to the user, but is silent in determining the wear being based on the flow and pressure data.
Blendinger, paragraphs 0017, 0026, and 0039, discloses the use of a pressure sensor as well as a liquid/gas meter (sensor) to determine the condition of wear of a nozzle, disclosing that such use along with a sound sensor allows for verification relating to the wear of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the flow and pressure in the system to both detect and verify wear of a nozzle as disclosed by Blendinger into the system of Telleria, such a combination would allow not just a detection of wear in the system but further indication and verification of the wear using multiple sensors to make the determination.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Telleria as modified discloses indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path comprises sensor data indicative of a sensed speed of a motor that drives the pump (paragraph 0171, where the nozzle or pump can have the flow rate sensor which controls the coating material delivery rate, this being understood then that the flow rate is indicative of the pump, and thus the speed at which the pump is pumping fluid with respect to the motor driving the pump).
With respect to claim 3, Telleria as modified discloses the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path comprises a calculated flow rate metric (the calculation done by the flow rate sensor which determines the flow rate).
With respect to claim 4 and 16, Telleria as modified discloses the data indicative of the pressure of the fluid along the flow path comprises sensor data indicative of a sensed pressure of fluid along the flow path (paragraph 0118).
With respect to claim 5 and 17, Telleria as modified discloses the tip wear metric is indicative of a size of the tip orifice of the spray tip (as understood the wear would change the tip orifice size, thus making it an incorrect size when there is wear).
With respect to claim 6, Telleria as modified discloses the tip wear metric is indicative of a remaining life of the spray tip (Blendinger discloses, paragraph 0013, determines if there exists enough wear that maintenance is required and a new part is needed, thus allowing for precise planning for the stocking and re-ordering of parts subject to wear discloses that there is a metric indicative of how much time is left that the part can be used such that a new part can be precisely planned for ordering to replace it).
With respect to claim 10, Telleria as modified discloses the one or more processors comprise a plurality of processors (paragraph 0046), the plurality of processors comprising a first one or more processors coupled to the pump and a second one or more processors remote from the pump (paragraph 0046 discloses one or more processors for executing the tasks of the system 100, understood that the various elements of the pump, motors, and actuators in Telleria would have processors for executing the tasks given to them).
With respect to claim 15, Telleria as modified discloses obtaining data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid pumped along the flow path comprises calculating a flow rate metric based at least on a value indicative of a speed of a motor that drives a pump that pumps the fluid along the flow path (Telleria discloses the pump, paragraph 0118, which has a motor/driver which runs the pump. The calculated flow rate is reflective of the speed of the pump and thus the speed of the motor, and can thus be understood to be “indicative” of the speed of the motor that drives the pump).
Claim(s) 8-9, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telleria and Blendinger as applied to claims 1, above, and further in view of Wegelin (U.S. 2009/0204256).
With respect to claims 8-9, 20, and 22, Telleria discloses the display element, but fails to disclose comprising a gauge display element, the gauge display element defining a graphical volume and including a fill element that visually fills at least a portion of the graphical volume to indicate the remaining life of the spray tip, wherein the gauge display element is in a shape of a spray tip.
Wegelin, paragraph 0042, discloses a display element (such as visual indicia or and LCD) where the remaining operating life of a container is disclosed such that the system can disclose the remaining operating time the container has until it needs to be changed/refilled.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the visual indicia or LCD of Wegelin disclosing the remaining life into the system of Telleria as modified. Where the system of Telleria as modified disclosed having a replacement being done to it due to wear, and the replacement being calculated such that a replacement can be ordered, further including such a display element would allow a user to better visualize such remaining life left in the element. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to utilize such a shape as a spray tip as the displayed gauge as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11-12, and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to disclose “determine a size of the tip orifice of the spray tip; compare the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip to a reference size of the tip orifice of the spray tip; and determine the tip wear metric, indicative of the remaining life of the spray tip, based on the comparison of the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip to the reference size of the tip orifice of the spray tip” as found in claims 7 and 18 and further fails to disclose “determine a size of the tip orifice of the spray tip based at least on the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path and the data indicative of the pressure of the fluid along the flow path, and wherein the second one or more processors are remote from the pump and are communicatively coupled to the first one or more processors, and the second one or more processors are configured to determine, as the tip wear metric, a metric indicative of a remaining life of the spray tip based at least on the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip” claimed in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752