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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment of the claims, filed on 02/19/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-15, 17 from the final office action, mailed on 11/19/2025, by amending claim 1, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim interpretation
(1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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. The “occupancy detection device” of Claim 1, “heating device” of Claims 2 and 4, and “cooling device” of Claim 6, because of the term “device”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
-b. The “handling mechanism”, “rotary transport mechanism”, “loading mechanism” and “unloading mechanism” in Claim 1, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) Continued from 112 6th paragraph above, claim 1 is indefinite.
As discussed in the claim interpretation above,
The recited “occupancy detection device”, “handling mechanism”, “rotary transport mechanism”, “loading mechanism”, “unloading mechanism”, “heating device”, and “cooling device” invoke 35USC112(f) or pre-AIA 35USC112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the “mechanism” and “device”. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the same language without providing any particular structure, thus it is not clear what is required to meet the limitations.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 112 2nd and 6th paragraphs,
The issues were discussed during the prosecution from the non-final rejection mailed on 09/06/2024 and final-rejection mailed on 01/13/2025, as a result, the applicants canceled the limitations. However, the applicants added the same limitation again, therefore, same issues are raised again.
The applicants argue that Applicant contends the claim terms identified by the Examiner would be readily understood by a person possessing ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, namely, any suitable sensor for the "occupancy detection device" to detect the presence of a workpiece, any suitable loading and unloading mechanism for the "handling mechanism", any suitable transport for the "rotary transport mechanism" to route the workpiece about 180 degrees, as illustrated, any suitable heater for the "heating device", and any suitable cooler for the "cooling device". To consider otherwise would require grossly underestimating the level of understanding and skill of a person skill in the art of coating equipment, particularly in view of the specification and drawings of the present application. Skilled artisans in the art of coating equipment, as claimed and disclosed, possess high levels of skill and understanding, and possess great understanding and knowledge of the structure of "mechanisms" and "devices" claimed, and as such, would readily understand the "occupancy detection device", "handling mechanism", "rotary transport mechanism", "loading mechanism", "unloading mechanism", "heating device", and "cooling device" as names for structure. Accordingly, it is believed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) should be withdrawn. Such action is respectfully requested, see pages 8-9.
The argument is found not persuasive.
The applicants’ response is requesting the examiner to interpret the terms, as recited, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As discussed in the rejection above, the terms, as recited (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation), invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is limited by the description in the specification, and they should be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function.
However, the written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the “mechanism” and “device”. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the same language without providing any particular structure, thus it is not clear what is required to meet the limitations.
If the 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am-6pm 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718