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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention Group I, and further, Species A in the reply filed on July 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant believes this Office has not demonstrated an unduly increase in a search burden to examine all pending claims in the instant application to meet the second criteria, set forth in MPEP § 803, for a restriction to be proper. This is not found persuasive because the determination of a serious search and examination burden is at the discretion of the examiner. In this case, as set forth in the Restriction Requirement mailed on June 4, 2026, search and consideration of all of the independent and distinct inventions and distinct species of the instant application would require an undue burden in order to give full consideration of all of the limitations of the divergent subject matter between the distinct inventions and species, and thus, such would require different search strategies and different examination thought processes, which would thereby significantly increase the amount of time for a proper and thorough examination of the application, when the examiner is already substantially limited in examination time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 4, 13-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 24, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS forms filed on January 22, 2024, September 4, 2024, February 27, 2025, July 17, 2025, March 2, 2026, April 14, 2026, June 17, 2026, and July 28, 2026, are hereby acknowledged and have been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the aforementioned IDS forms.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
The “first sensor...” and the “second sensor...”, as recited in claims 6 and 7, are not shown in the drawings of the application
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to because reference number “832”, as shown in Fig. 8D, appears to be inconsistent with the description of this reference number in (at least) paragraph [00117].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to because it appears that all of the reference numbers shown in Fig. 16, with the exception of “910” (which is also inconsistent with the description thereof in paragraph [0073]), are missing from the specification. It also appears that nearly all of the 3-digit reference numbers beginning with “8” in the specification are not shown in the drawings, although the descriptions of the 3-digit reference numbers beginning with “8” appear to generally match the features shown in Fig. 16. It thus appears that, in at least most cases, either the affected portions of the specification discussed above, and/or the reference numbers in Fig. 16, should be corrected for consistency.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 7, 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, particularly in light of the originally-filed disclosure, there does not seem to be any clear description in the specification regarding the paint spraying system as “further comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a pressure of the paint and generate, as the data indicative of the pressure of the paint, a first sensor signal; and a second sensor configured to detect a characteristic indicative of the of the flow rate of the paint and to generate, as the data indicative of the flow rate of the paint, a second sensor signal”; as well as a clear description regarding the second sensor as comprising “a motor speed sensor configured to detect, as the characteristic indicative of the flow rate of the paint, a speed of a motor that drives the pump”. Also, as set forth above in paragraph 5 of the instant Office action, such features are not shown in the drawings. Where exactly are these “sensor” elements located in the system, and where does the specification clearly describe them?
Regarding claim 10, on line 2, the metes and bounds of the recitation, “...to generate an indication indicative of a recommended pressure setting” are unclear. To what exactly does this “recommended pressure setting” pertain?
Regarding claim 11, on lines 1-2, the metes and bounds of the recitation, “wherein the control signal sets a pressure” are unclear. To what exactly does this set “pressure” pertain?
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cognon et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0275544, in view of Scott, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0259288.
As to claim 1, Cognon (see Fig. 1) shows and describes a paint spraying system (1) comprising: a paint spray gun (3); a spray tip (5) removably coupled to the paint spray gun and having a tip orifice configured to output paint atomized in a spray pattern (“spray beam”, as discussed throughout the Cognon specification), with the spray tip further including a readable element (95); a reader (64) coupled to the paint spray gun (see paragraphs [0017], [0032] and [0033]) and configured to read the readable element and to generate a signal indicative of an identifier of the spray tip (see paragraphs [0025]-[0031]); and one or more processors (8) configured to: determine an identity of the spray tip based on the signal generated by the reader (see again, paragraphs [0025]-[0031]); and identify a characteristic of the spray tip based on the identity of the spray tip (see again, paragraphs [0025]-[0031]). However, Cognon is silent as to the system also including a pump configured to pump the paint from a paint source to the paint spray gun (although such is almost assuredly implied, since the paint spray gun of Cognon would not be able to spray paint without a pressurized source of paint being fed thereto), and Cognon also does not expressly disclose that the one or more processors is/are configured to generate a control signal based, at least in part, on the identified characteristic of the spray tip.
Scott (see Figs. 1-5) shows a paint spraying system (14) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Cognon, with the Scott system also including a paint spray gun (38) with a spray tip having a readable element (one of 64; see the last two sentences in each of paragraphs [0032] and [0033], particularly in the context of the description in paragraph [0031]); a pump (46; see paragraph [0029]) configured to pump the paint from a paint source (42) to the paint spray gun (see Fig. 2); a reader (57) coupled to the paint spray gun (see paragraph [0031) and configured to read the readable element and to generate a signal indicative of an identifier of the spray tip (see paragraphs [0019] and [0031]); and one or more processors (included with 12 and/or 32) configured to: determine an identity of the spray tip based on the signal generated by the reader (see again, paragraphs [0019] and [0031]); and identify a characteristic of the spray tip based on the identity of the spray tip (see again, paragraphs [0019] and [0031]). Scott also shows and describes the one or more processors as being configured to generate a control signal based, at least in part, on the identified characteristic of the spray tip (see Figs. 4 and 5; and see paragraphs [0025], [0041]-[0044], particularly in the context of the discussion in paragraphs [0031]-[0033]). Scott expressly states that (at least) the generation of the control signal(s) is/are advantageous, particularly when an operator of the paint spray gun is performing an operation improperly, whereby bypassing the operator and providing automatic control of particular system elements will result in improved system performance and results (see again, paragraphs [0042] and [0044]).
Thus, as to the recitation regarding inclusion of a “pump”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cognon to include a pump configured to pump the paint from a paint source to the paint spray gun, as taught by Scott, since the paint spray gun of the system of Cognon clearly requires a pressurized source of paint being fed thereto, and Scott teaches that employing a pump for providing such was known in the art. As to the recitation regarding the one or more processors being configured to generate a control signal based, at least in part, on the identified characteristic of the spray tip, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such a function for the one or more processors of the system of Cognon, as Scott expressly states that doing so is advantageous, particularly when an operator of the paint spray gun is performing an operation improperly, whereby bypassing the operator and providing automatic control of particular system elements will result in improved system performance and results.
As to claim 2, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 1, and wherein the readable element comprises a wireless communication tag configured to utilize radio frequencies to wirelessly transmit data identifying the spray tip, and wherein the reader comprises a wireless reader configured to wirelessly read the wireless communication tag (see paragraph [0026] of Cognon; and also note paragraph [0031] of Scott).
As to claim 5, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 1, and Cognon further discloses the characteristic of the spray tip as comprising a first orifice size corresponding to the spray tip (see paragraphs [0030]-[0031], particularly with respect to the discussion of spray tip “wear”) and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain data indicative of a pressure of the paint (see paragraphs [0023] and [0030]); and determine a second orifice size of the spray tip based, at least in part, on the data indicative of the pressure of the paint (see again, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). However, Cognon is silent as to the one or more processors being configured to also obtain data indicative of a flow rate of the paint, as well as determining the second orifice size of the spray tip based, at least in part, on the data indicative of the flow rate of the paint.
Scott similarly and correspondingly teaches the characteristic of the spray tip as comprising a first orifice size corresponding to the corresponding spray tip (see paragraphs [0019], [0032]-[0033] and [0039], particularly with respect to the discussion of spray tip “wear”) and wherein the corresponding one or more processors are further configured to: obtain data indicative of a flow rate of the corresponding paint (see paragraphs [0019],[0029] and [0033]); obtain data indicative of a pressure of the corresponding paint (see paragraphs [0019], [0029] and [0033]); and determine a second orifice size of the spray tip based, at least in part, on the data indicative of the flow rate of the paint and the data indicative of the pressure of the paint (see paragraph [0039], particularly in the context of paragraphs [0019], [0032] and [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cognon, whereby the one or more processors is/are configured to determine the second orifice size of the spray tip based also, at least in part, on obtained data indicative of a flow rate of the paint, as taught by Scott, thus providing at least one more data point for a more accurate processor determination.
As to claim 6, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 5, and further comprising: a first sensor (63 of Cognon - see paragraph [0023]; and one of either 50 or 64 of Scott – see paragraphs [0029] and [0033]) configured to detect a pressure of the paint and generate, as the data indicative of the pressure of the paint, a first sensor signal; and a second sensor (another one of either 50 or 64 of Scott – see again, paragraphs [0029] and [0033]) configured to detect a characteristic indicative of the of the flow rate of the paint and to generate, as the data indicative of the flow rate of the paint, a second sensor signal.
As to claim 7, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 6, and wherein the second sensor (as one of “50”, as disclosed by Scott), which detects the characteristic indicative of the flow rate of the paint, is associated with the paint source (42), which includes the pump (46; see paragraph [0029]). Thus, it can reasonably be said that the second/flow rate sensor is implied as comprising a motor speed sensor configured to detect, as the characteristic indicative of the flow rate of the paint, a speed of a motor that drives the pump. In the unlikely event that such is not clearly implied by Scott, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second/flow rate sensor of Cognon, as modified above by Scott, to determine the flow rate of the paint using a motor speed sensor for detecting a speed of the pump, as such is common and well known in the art as a means for determining flow rate in a fluid pumping and/or spraying system.
As to claim 8, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 5, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a tip diagnostic output indicative of a wear of the spray tip based, at least in part, on the first orifice size and the second orifice size (see paragraphs [0020] and [0027]-[0031] of Cognon; and see paragraphs [0026], [0033]-[0035] and [0039] of Scott).
As to claim 9, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 8, and wherein the control signal controls an interface to generate an indication indicative of the wear of the spray tip based, at least in part, on the tip diagnostic output (see paragraphs [0030]-[0031] of Cognon; and see paragraph [0034] of Scott).
As to claim 10, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 1, and wherein the control signal controls an interface to generate an indication indicative of a recommended pressure setting of the paint (see paragraphs [0023] and [0030] of Cognon; and see paragraphs [0026] and [0034] of Scott).
As to claim 11, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 1, and wherein the control signal sets a pressure of the paint (see paragraphs [0025], [0029] and [0041]-[0044] of Scott), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control a motor (such as the motor implicitly associated with the pump) based on the set pressure (see again, paragraphs [0025], [0029] and [0041-[0044] of Scott).
As to claim 12, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 1. However, Cognon does not expressly disclose inclusion of a paint sensor configured to detect a type of the paint and generate a sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the control signal based, at least in part, on the sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint.
Scott teaches providing a paint sensor (one of either of 50 or 64, as described in at least paragraphs [0029] and [0033], which detects “material characteristics” of the paint) configured to detect a type of the corresponding paint and generate a sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint, and wherein the corresponding one or more processors are further configured to generate the control signal based, at least in part, on the sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint (see paragraphs [0039], [0042]-[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of (modified) Cognon, to further include a paint sensor configured to detect a type of the paint and generate a sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the control signal based, at least in part, on the sensor signal indicative of the type of the paint, as taught by Scott, thus providing at least one more data point for more improved control of the system.
As to claim 21, modified Cognon shows and describes the paint spraying system of claim 2, and wherein the wireless communication tag comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and wherein the reader comprises an RFID reader (see again, paragraph [0026] of Cognon; and also note again, paragraph [0031] of Scott).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Hooper et al. and Kloepfer et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
