DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/527,567, filed on 16 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 January 2024, 29 January 2024, and 19 November 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite calculating coating depositing area data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface per unit of time by an electronic computing system, using data received and obtaining from sensors and electronic memory.
The limitation of calculating the coating deposition area data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of an electronic computing system, which is a generic computer component. All these steps can be done mentally - receiving the distance data and positional data, obtaining coating model data of the spray cone and coating fluid flow data, and matching the data over time of the respective timestamp can be done by sight or sound; adjusting the coating model data and calculating the coating depositing area data based on the received data can be done by thinking and calculating by a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no practical use of the calculated data in the claims. The claims do not recite any other practical application. The additional elements, electronic computing system to perform the obtaining, receiving and calculating data, sensors for providing distance and position data and memory for providing coating model data, are common and generic elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integrating of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the electronic computing system obtaining, receiving and calculating data, sensors for providing distance and position data and memory for providing coating model data, amounts to no more than mere instructions to applying the exception using a generic computer component, and the additional elements are common and generic components. There is no discussion in the claims of any new features of these elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0242205 to P. E. Jarvis (“Jarvis”) in view of US 2017/0036232 to Hoffman et al. (“Hoffman”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 16-17, Jarvis teaches a method of spraying coating liquid on a surface with a spray gun (see Abstract, FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0002], [0025]) and discloses to determine and calculate the location of applied coating and the thickness using a controlled module 30 (computer system) (¶¶ [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0010], and [0025]) (method of electronically tracking of spray coating of a coating fluid on a physical surface by a spray gun arranged to spray the coating fluid in a spraying direction by an electronic computing system). Jarvis teaches the position sensor 28 connected to the spray gun 16 determines the position and attitude of the spray gun relative to the workpiece 14 (FIG. 1; ¶ [0025]), wherein the position sensor 28 further determine the direction, speed and acceleration of the spray gun movement relative to the surface (¶ [0009]) and it’s connected to the controlled module 30 (¶ [0025]), thus, the position sensor 28 (distance sensor module and position sensing system) provides the distance data (physical distance between the spray gun and the surface) and the position data (indication of spray gun relative to a first position on the surface) to the electronic computing system. Jarvis teaches to obtain the shape and configuration of the spray cone emanating from the nozzle (¶ [0010]) (obtaining three-dimensional coating model data of a spray cone associated with the spray gun). It would be obvious to store and obtain the 3d coating model data from an electronic memory since this data is used for calculation (¶ [0010]). Jarvis teaches to obtain a mass flow rate of the coating fluid through the spray gun (¶ [0010]) (obtaining coating fluid flow data providing an indication of a mass flow rate of the coating fluid through the spray gun). Jarvis teaches the thickness of the coating is determined by the shape and configuration of the spray cone and the mass flow rate (¶¶ [0010] and [0030]), therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the cone shape of the spray based on the mass flow rate in the process to yield the desired thickness. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. (adjusting the coating model data based on the coating fluid flow data). Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness on specific location of the coating being applied (coating deposition data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface) on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (¶¶ [0006], [0010], [0030], [0026]-[0028]). Jarvis does not explicitly teach the distance data is provided with second timestamp, the position data is provided with third timestamp, the fluid flow data is provided with a first timestamp and matching the data based on the timestamps. However, Jarvis teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area (¶¶ [0006], [0010] and [0030]), thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Jarvis is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface (¶ [0006]), it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the coating deposition area data is expected to be characterized as the coating deposition on an area of the surface per unit of time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations.
Jarvis teaches data storage and spray operations instructed by a control system comprising a computer (Abstract; ¶ [0029]); however the reference does not expressly teach non-transitory media for storing process operations. Hoffman is similarly directed to systems and methods for monitoring and controlling automated spraying operations, and teaches storage and execution associated instructions on non-transitory computer media is routine in the art (¶ [0037]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have stored and executed process instructions on non-transitory computer-readable storage media in the method of Jarvis.
With regard to Claim 2, Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness (characteristics of a layer of coating fluid on the physical surface) on specific location of the coating being applied on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (¶¶ [0006], [0010], [0030], [0026]-[0028]). Jarvis does not explicitly teach the distance data is provided with second timestamp, the position data is provided with third timestamp, the fluid flow data is provided with a first timestamp and matching the data based on the timestamps. However, Jarvis teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area (¶¶ [0006], [0010] and [0030]), thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Jarvis is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface (¶ [0006]), it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the thickness is expected to require the time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations.
With regard to Claim 3, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (¶ [0009]) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (¶ 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). The measurement of the acceleration, direction and speed are expected to the continuous (¶ [0010]), thus, the integration of the first acceleration in time twice over time and the integration of the second acceleration in time twice over time is reasonable expected.
With regard to Claim 4, Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (¶ [0027]) which is considered as swinging motion, and Jarvis teaches the calculation is started (¶¶ [0006] and [0010]).
With regard to Claim 5, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (¶ 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (¶ [0027]) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would necessarily include one of the first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changing sign at least two times during a pre-determined interval.
With regard to Claim 6, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (¶ [0009]) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (¶ [0027]) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (¶ [0027]) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would necessarily include at least one of a first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changing sign at least three times during a pre-determined interval and a first time period between a first sign and a second sign change varies from a second time period between the second sign change and a third sign change by less than a per-determined amount.
With regard to Claim 7, Jarvis teaches to determine the direction of the spraying gun movement (orientation) (¶ [0009]) and the calculation is also based on the orientation (¶ [0006], [0010], [0025], [0027], [0030]).
With regard to Claim 8, Jarvis teaches a distance sensor is used (¶ [0009]) but does not explicitly teach more than one sensor is used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Since Jarvis teaches the distance sensors is used to determine the orientation, thus, Jarvis teaches to orientation is decided based on difference between multiple distance sensor values.
With regard to Claim 9, Jarvis teaches a sensor is used to determine the direction, traversal speed and acceleration of the spraying gun (¶¶ [0009], [0030]), which are associated with the rotational data/position, and such data are used to determine the orientation of the spray gun.
With regard to Claim 10, Jarvis teaches to determine cone intersection plane coating fluid data based on the distance data and the 3d coating data (FIGs. 2a-2b; ¶¶ [0026]-[0027], [0030]), and such data is used to calculate the coating deposition area data (¶ [0030]).
With regard to Claim 11, Jarvis teaches to determine the orientation of the spray gun (¶ [0009]) and the calculation is also based on the orientation (¶¶ [0025], [0029]-[0030]).
With regard to Claim 12, Jarvis teaches to receive an input related to selection of pre-determine coating fluid and spray cone (¶ [0010]) in response to providing data related to the pre-determined coating fluid to the electronic memory (¶¶ [0025], [0027], [0029]-[0030]). Although Jarvis does not explicitly teach the data is stored in the electronic memory, Jarvis teaches the calculation is done by the computer module (¶ [0025]), thus, the data would be expected to be store in electronic memory.
With regard to Claim 13, Jarvis does not explicitly teach the distance data is provided with second timestamp, the position data is provided with third timestamp, the fluid flow data is provided with a first timestamp and matching the data based on the timestamps. However, Jarvis teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area (¶¶ [0006], [0010] and [0030]), thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Jarvis is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface (¶ [0006]), it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the coating deposition area data is expected to be characterized as the coating deposition on an area of the surface per unit of time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations. It would be obvious that the timestamps are from a network source since the calculation is performed by a computer (¶ [0025]).
With regard to Claim 14, Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness on specific location of the coating being applied (coating deposition data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface) on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (¶¶ [0006], [0010], [0030], [0026]-[0028]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis in view of Hoffman as applied to Claim 14 and further in view of US 2017/0312775 to Franks et al. (“Franks”).
With regard to Claim 15, Jarvis teaches all limitation of this claim, except the curing data. Franks teaches a method of spray coating a surface by a spray gun and discloses to collect curing data to determine the cured thickness of the cured layer of the coating fluid on the surface (Abstract, ¶¶ [0001]-[0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the cured thickness based on the curing data as suggested by Franks in the method of Jarvis, in order to avoid instances of cured thickness not matching that of a desired coating thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715