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 .
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 1-4, 8-16, and 19-26 are pending, claims 5-7 and 17-18 are cancelled, claims 23-26 are new, and claims 1-2, 8, 11, 13, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 10-16, and 19, 21, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kieffer (U.S. 2020/0230632).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Kieffer discloses a system (figures 1 and 2)/ A computer-implement method comprising:
a fluid spray gun (figure 2, #110) comprising a spray tip (tip of 110) having a tip orifice (118);
a pump (102) configured to pump fluid along a flow path (106) to the fluid spray gun (see figure 1); and
a monitoring system (paragraph 0025) comprising one or more processors (paragraphs 0042 and 0046), the monitoring system configured to:
obtain data indicative of a flow rate of the fluid along the flow path (paragraph 0067, such that it is obtained and displayed, paragraph 0049 discloses the flow being monitored);
obtain data indicative of a pressure of the fluid along the flow path (paragraph 0064, pressure from the pump, paragraph 0093-0094);
determine a size of the tip orifice (paragraphs 0043, 0052, and 0088) 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 (paragraphs 0043, 0052, and 0088);
compare the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip to a reference size of the tip orifice of the spray tip (paragraphs 0043, 0052, and 0088); and determine a tip wear metric indicative of a 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 (paragraphs 0043, 0052, and 0088); and
control a display screen to generate a display based on the tip wear metric (paragraph 0039, 0067, and 0088). The above rejected system claims disclose all the limitations that also read on the computer-implemented method claim.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Kieffer discloses the data 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 0055, the noted pump rpm correlates to fluid flow).
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Kieffer discloses wherein the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path comprises a calculated flow rate metric (paragraph 0049, calculated from the piston reciprocation).
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Kieffer discloses wherein 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 0023 discloses using sensed pressure, thus pressure data indicative of a sensed pressure).
With respect to claim 10, Kieffer discloses the one or more processors comprise a plurality of processors (paragraph 0041-0042, has a processor with the controller, 0030 discloses the pump also having said controller, where there is also a user interface 200, which further has a processor, paragraph 0034-0035), 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 (111 being coupled with the pump and 200 being the user interface and its associated processor remote from the pump, such as a phone with its processor).
With respect to claims 11 and 21, Kieffer discloses the first one or more processors are configured to obtain the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid along the flow path (being the fluid flow rate from the pump, being data of the pump), obtain the data indicative of a pressure of the fluid along the flow path (being the pressure determined by the pump), and determine the 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 (paragraphs 0041-0042, and 0046, where 111 includes 600 which determines the tip orifice from the collected data, paragraph 0067), and
wherein the second one or more processors are remote from the pump and are communicatively coupled to the first one or more processors (such that the second processor receives the information from the first controller and utilizes a user interface), and the second one or more processors are configured to compare the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip to the 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 (paragraph 0035, 0045, 0051-0052, where the tip wear logic of 614 is done with the user interface such that it displays the information to a user who can interact with it to manage the jobs).
With respect to claim 12, Kieffer discloses the second one or more processors and the display screen are disposed on a mobile device (paragraph 0041).
With respect to claim 19, Kieffer discloses generating the tip wear metric further comprises generating the tip wear metric as being indicative of a remaining life of the spray tip based on comparing of the determined size of the tip orifice of the spray tip of the fluid applicator to the reference tip orifice size corresponding to the spray tip of the fluid applicator (paragraphs 0043, 0052, and 0088).
With respect to claim 23, Kieffer discloses the data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid pumped, by the pump, along the flow path to the fluid applicator comprises sensor data indicative of a sensed speed of a motor that drives the pump (paragraph 0055, the noted pump rpm correlates to fluid flow, where the rpm is indicative of the speed of the motor as it drives the pump).
With respect to claim 24, Kieffer discloses data indicative of the flow rate of the fluid pumped, by the pump, along the flow path to the fluid applicator comprises a calculated flow rate metric (paragraph 0049, calculated from the piston reciprocation).
With respect to claim 25, Kieffer discloses the data indicative of the pressure of the fluid pumped along the flow path comprises sensor data indicative of a sensed pressure of fluid along the flow path (paragraph 0023 discloses using sensed pressure, thus pressure data indicative of a sensed pressure).
With respect to claim 26, Kieffer discloses the second one or more processors and the display screen are disposed on a mobile device (paragraph 0041)..
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kieffer.
With respect to claims 8, 9, 20, and 22 Kieffer discloses the display, but fails to disclose the display comprises 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a gauge display with a graphical volume that fills with a portion of the life remaining of the spray tip, where the gauge display element is in a shape of a spray tip as matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See in re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Kieffer disclosing displaying the remaining life of the spray tip in their user display, the further gauge shape and being filled to show is understood as being ornamental and does not add a function other then what is the disclosed displaying of the remaining life.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (04/14/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-4, 8-16, and 19-26 are pending, claims 5-7 and 17-18 are cancelled, claims 23-26 are new, and claims 1-2, 8, 11, 13, 19, and 21 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (04/09/2026). Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) pending above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights