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
Applicant's submission filed on October 23, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 7 were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 9-16 were previously withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The previous objection to the title for not being descriptive is maintained.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “a viscous fluid” in the last line of the claim 1 should be “the viscous fluid” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 4 is objected to because of its dependence on cancelled claim 3. For the purpose of prosecution, Examiner is considering the claim to be dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 5 and 7 based on the term “long” in claims 5 and 7 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 5 and 7.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is considering the term “viscous fluid” to be definite based on the skill of an ordinary artisan. Examiner is considering this term to be equivalent to having a viscosity greater than water and greater than 50 cps at standard temperature and pressure.
Claim Interpretation
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: “control module” in claims 1-8.
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 § 102
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck).
Regarding claim 1, LePage teaches an apparatus for inspecting and repairing a dispensed viscous fluid (14), the apparatus comprising:
a dispenser module (10) dispensing a viscous fluid on a workpiece;
a vision module (18 camera) generating original images (capturing images in paragraph 4, 30) by photographing the viscous fluid dispensed on the workpiece;
a robot module (12) moving the dispenser module (10) and the vision module (18) through predetermined paths (dispensing path for the dispenser in paragraph 12; separately move the camera to separate locations for bead inspection in paragraph 12), respectively; and
a control module (vision PC or other vision processor) determining whether a defective part (32, 50) exists in the dispensed viscous fluid by analyzing the original images and controlling the dispenser module (10) and the robot module (12) to dispense the viscous fluid (another bead 14) to a defective part (50 or gap 22) when the defective part exists. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for inspecting and repairing a dispensed viscous fluid). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. LePage is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. generating original images, module moving, module dispensing, module determining by analyzing). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. LePage is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 1, LePage does not explicitly teach a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part.
Telleria teaches a coating system including a computing device that generates instructions for driving the end effector to perform at least one coating task.
Telleria teaches a correction module (1905) forming a shape of the viscous fluid. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 42, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.) Examiner is considering adjusting the setting on blowers collected by sensors to provide a coating with the desired composition and thickness to be equivalent to forms a shape of the viscous fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part; because Telleria teaches this processing step can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 42, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 1, LePage does not explicitly teach a forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part.
Schlatterbeck teaches coating on a substrate.
Further, Schlatterbeck teaches use of air is a known way to smooth coating on the recently coated surfaces. (See Schlatterbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 42, 84.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part; because Schlatterbeck teaches the discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Schlatterbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 42, 84.)
Regarding claim 1, LePage does not explicitly teach controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part.
Telleria controlling the robot module (100, 160M) and the correction module (1905) to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part. (See Telleria, paragraphs 66, 142)
Examiner is considering “optimize delivery of the coating… controlling the number of passes over a give spot” to be equivalent to “controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper number of passes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal delivery for the desired properties of the coating including (height and shape). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 66, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 142-143, 146, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 1, LePage does not explicitly teach the control module includes a processor and a storage which is communicatively connected to the processor and stores program codes.
Telleria teaches the control module includes a processor (processor) and a storage (memory) which is communicatively connected to the processor (executed by the processor) and stores program codes (execution of tasks) (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 77, 98, 100, 141, 145, 150-151, 153, and 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the control module includes a processor and a storage which is communicatively connected to the processor and stores program codes; because Telleria teaches this structure would enable the coating to be performed by the automated system. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 4, LePage does not explicitly teach one nozzle or a plurality of nozzles discharging air toward the viscous fluid; a body fixing the nozzle to be directed toward the viscous fluid; and controls the robot module to arrange the body at a desired position.
Telleria teaches one nozzle or a plurality of nozzles ( outlet facing to the left in 1905) discharging air toward the viscous fluid; a body (1910) fixing the nozzle to be directed toward the viscous fluid; and an air supplier supplying air to the nozzle through an air line, and controls the robot module to arrange the body (1910) at a desired position (position according to a toolpath in paragraph 137 ). (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include one nozzle or a plurality of nozzles discharging air toward the viscous fluid; a body fixing the nozzle to be directed toward the viscous fluid; and an air supplier supplying air to the nozzle through an air line, wherein the control module controls the robot module to arrange the body at a desired position; because Telleria teaches this discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 4, LePage does not explicitly teach the control module controls an air supplier supplying air to the nozzle through an air line, wherein the control module controls whether the air supplier outputs air and air output pressure of the air supplier so that air discharged by the nozzle changes a shape of the viscous fluid.
Telleria teaches applied thickness can be used to determine tool parameter for the blower by the controller. Examiner considers air output pressure as a known tool parameter of the blower.
Examiner is considering tool parameters of the blower to be equivalent to the control module controls air output pressure of the air supplier so that air discharged by the nozzle changes a shape of the viscous fluid. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have an air supplier supplying air to the nozzle through an air line, wherein the control module controls whether the air supplier outputs air and air output pressure of the air supplier so that air discharged by the nozzle changes a shape of the viscous fluid with a reasonableexpectation of success, because Telleria teaches this discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230060352 A1 to Lewis et al (hereinafter Lewis) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240062423 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230060352 A1 to Lewis et al (hereinafter Lewis) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240062423 A1 to Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 2, LePage teaches the control module generates sampling images (captured images) by extracting some of the original images generated by being photographed in real time by the vision module by considering a moving distance of the robot module and a shooting interval of the vision module and determines in real time whether a defect exists in the viscous fluid shown in the image. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 12-18, and Fig. 4.) Examiner is considering the images to be equivalent to “sampling images by extracting some of the original images generated by being photographed in real time by considering a moving distance of the robot module and a shooting interval of the vision module” to the “robot 12 identifies defects 32 in the captured image and first identifies the locations of each defect in the coordinate system of the image (e.g., using pixel locations) 32. The robot 12 then uses the location of the reference features 16A in the captured images to determine where the defects are located with respect to the component itself (i.e., the part coordinate system) 34” in paragraph 16 of LePage. Examiner is considering LePage teaching the robot 12 may use calibration data between the camera 18 and the robot 12 (e.g., the nozzle 10) to determine where the defects are located relative to the robot 12 (i.e., the robot coordinate system) 38 to be equivalent to the claim limitation “by considering a moving distance of the robot module and a shooting interval of the vision module”.
LePage teaches the control module generates sampling images (captured images) by extracting some of the original images generated by being photographed in real time by the vision module and determines in real time whether a defect exists in the viscous fluid shown in the image. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 12-18, and Fig. 4.) Examiner is considering the images to be equivalent to “sampling images by extracting some of the original images generated by being photographed in real time” to the “robot 12 identifies defects 32 in the captured image and first identifies the locations of each defect in the coordinate system of the image (e.g., using pixel locations) 32. The robot 12 then uses the location of the reference features 16A in the captured images to determine where the defects are located with respect to the component itself (i.e., the part coordinate system) 34” in paragraph 16 of LePage.
Regarding claim 2, LePage does not explicitly teaches the control module … generates stitching images by connecting the sampling images to each other on a basis of a shape of the viscous fluid shown in each of the sampling images.
Lewis is directed to a coating system.
Lewis teaches the control module … generates stitching images by connecting the sampling images to each other on a basis of a shape of the viscous fluid shown in each of the sampling images (See Lewis, Abstract, paragraphs 65-81 and Figs. 1-8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the control module generates sampling images by extracting some of the original images generated by being photographed in real time by the vision module by considering a moving distance of the robot module and a shooting interval of the vision module, generates stitching images by connecting the sampling images to each other on a basis of a shape of the viscous fluid shown in each of the sampling images, generates a panoramic image by connecting the stitching images to each other, and determines in real time whether a defect exists in the viscous fluid shown in the panoramic image; because Lewis teaches stitching is a known for taking images of fluid to enable defect classification by the images to obtain a second operating parameter for dispensing to improve quality and production efficiency . (See Lewis, Abstract, paragraphs 14-15, 65-81 and Figs. 1-8.)
Regarding claim 2, LePage does not explicitly teaches the control module … generates a panoramic image by connecting the stitching images to each other.
Chen is directed to a method for image analysis.
Chen teaches the control module … generates a panoramic image by connecting the stitching images to each other. (See Chen, Abstract, paragraphs 40, 41, 85, 155, 178, 181, 201-202, 216-217, and Figs. 1-8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the control module … generates a panoramic image by connecting the stitching images to each other; because Chen teaches a panoramic image is useful for calculating a target parameter to improve coating analysis and detection. (See Chen, Abstract, paragraphs 40, 41, 85, 155, 178, 181, 201-202, 216-217, and Figs. 1-8.)
The previous rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 3.
The previous rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210332468 A1 to Yong-Hun Kweon (hereinafter Kweon) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210332468 A1 to Yong-Hun Kweon (hereinafter Kweon).
Regarding claim 5, LePage does not explicitly teach the body has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long shape in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid.
Kweon teaches the body fixing the nozzle to be directed toward the fluid to be removed.
Kweon teaches the body (21) has an arcuate cross section in a width direction (direction of the gas 24 leaving the nozzle 22) of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long shape in a longitudinal direction (direction from cube 33 on the left to the cube on the right) of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles (22) faces the viscous fluid. (See Kweon, Fig. 4, Abstract, paragraphs 46-54, and 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the body has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long shape in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid; because Kweon teaches this structure can provide the layer in the width direction on the substrate. (See Kweon, Fig. 4, Abstract, paragraphs 46-54, and 77.)
Regarding claim 7, LePage does not explicitly teach the body has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long and curved shape in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid.
Kweon teaches the body (21) has an arcuate cross section in a width direction (direction of the gas 24 leaving the nozzle 22) of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long and curved shape in a longitudinal direction (direction from cube 33 on the left to the cube on the right) of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles (22) faces the viscous fluid. (See Kweon, Fig. 4, Abstract, paragraphs 46-54, and 77.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the body has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid and is formed into a long and curved shape in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid; because Kweon teaches this structure can provide the layer in the width direction on the substrate. (See Kweon, Fig. 4, Abstract, paragraphs 46-54, and 77.)
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,686,145 to Kensaku Akasaka et al (hereinafter Akasaka) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,686,145 to Kensaku Akasaka et al (hereinafter Akasaka).
Regarding claim 6, LePage does not explicitly teach the body comprises: a plurality of sub-bodies, each of which has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid; and joints connecting the plurality of sub-bodies to each other so that the plurality of sub-bodies is wholly transformed into a shape bent in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid, wherein the control module controls the joints to correspond to a straight or curved portion of a reference pattern of the viscous fluid so that air discharged by the nozzle forms the viscous fluid into a straight or curved line corresponding to the reference pattern.
Akasaka teaches the body fixing the nozzle to be directed toward the fluid to be removed.
Akasaka teaches the body (4) comprises: a plurality of sub-bodies (35, 36, 37) , each of which has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid (P) so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid; and joints connecting the plurality of sub-bodies to each other so that the plurality of sub-bodies is wholly transformed into a shape bent in a longitudinal direction (direction into the page in Fig. 7) of the viscous fluid. (See Akasaka, Fig. 4, Abstract, col. 3, lines 50-55; col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 1-15; col. 6, lines 34-39; col. 8, lines 5-7, 15-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the body comprises: a plurality of sub-bodies, each of which has an arcuate cross section in a width direction of the viscous fluid so that the plurality of nozzles faces the viscous fluid; and joints connecting the plurality of sub-bodies to each other so that the plurality of sub-bodies is wholly transformed into a shape bent in a longitudinal direction of the viscous fluid, because Akasaka teaches this structure can provide a uniform layer in the desired areas without irregularities in thickness. (See Akasaka, Fig. 4, Abstract, col. 3, lines 50-55; col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 1-15; col. 6, lines 34-39; col. 8, lines 5-7, 15-22.)
Regarding claim 6, LePage does not explicitly teach the control module controls the joints to correspond to a straight or curved portion of a reference pattern of the viscous fluid so that air discharged by the nozzle forms the viscous fluid into a straight or curved line corresponding to the reference pattern.
Telleria teaches applied thickness can be used to determine tool parameter for the blower by the controller. Examiner considers air output pressure as a known tool parameter of the blower.
Examiner is considering tool parameters of the blower to be equivalent to the control module controls air output pressure of the air supplier so that air discharged by the nozzle changes a shape of the viscous fluid.
(See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the control module controls the joints to correspond to a straight or curved portion of a reference pattern of the viscous fluid so that air discharged by the nozzle forms the viscous fluid into a straight or curved line corresponding to the reference pattern with a reasonable expectation of success, because Telleria teaches this discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,686,145 to Kensaku Akasaka et al (hereinafter Akasaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040202863 A1 to Saito et al (hereinafter Saito) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,686,145 to Kensaku Akasaka et al (hereinafter Akasaka) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040202863 A1 to Saito et al (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 8, LePage does not explicitly teach the plurality of nozzles is divided into two or more nozzle groups which discharge air toward the viscous fluid from various directions.
Akasaka teaches the plurality of nozzles is divided into two or more nozzle groups which discharge air toward the viscous fluid from various directions. (See Akasaka, Fig. 4, Abstract, col. 3, lines 50-55; col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 1-15; col. 6, lines 34-39; col. 8, lines 5-7, 15-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of nozzles is divided into two or more nozzle groups which discharge air toward the viscous fluid from various directions, because Akasaka teaches this structure can provide a uniform layer in the desired areas without irregularities in thickness. (See Akasaka, Fig. 4, Abstract, col. 3, lines 50-55; col. 4, lines 40-45; col. 5, lines 1-15; col. 6, lines 34-39; col. 8, lines 5-7, 15-22.)
Regarding claim 8, LePage does not explicitly teach the control module independently controls whether to output air supplied to the two or more nozzle groups by the air supplier and output pressure of the air according to a type of a defect of the viscous fluid.
Telleria teaches the planner system can control different components of the automated surface finishing system. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraph 100, 130, 135.)
Examiner is considering different components of the automated surface finishing system to be equivalent to the air supplier independently supplies air to the air line connected to each of the two or more nozzle groups, and the control module independently controls whether to output air supplied to the two or more nozzle groups by the air supplier and output pressure of the air according to a type of a defect of the viscous fluid.
(See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the air supplier independently supplies air to the air line connected to each of the two or more nozzle groups, and the control module independently controls whether to output air supplied to the two or more nozzle groups by the air supplier and output pressure of the air according to a type of a defect of the viscous fluid with a reasonable expectation of success, because Telleria teaches this discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 8, LePage does not explicitly teach the air supplier independently supplies air to the air line connected to each of the two or more nozzle groups.
Saito teaches the air supplier (7) independently supplies air to the air line connected to each of the two or more nozzle groups. (See Saito, Fig. 2, Abstract, and paragraph 107.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the air supplier independently supplies air to the air line connected to each of the two or more nozzle groups, because Saito teaches this is an art recognized equivalent structure for supplying air to coating system. (See Saito, Fig. 2, Abstract, and paragraph 107.)
Double Patenting
The previous rejection of claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim US Pat. Pub. No. 20240238820 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim US Pat. Pub. No. 20240238820 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230278225 A1 to Louis J. LePage (hereinafter LePage) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190093373 A1 to Telleria et al (hereinafter Telleria) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an apparatus repairing a dispensed viscous fluid (14), the apparatus comprising:
a dispenser module dispensing a viscous fluid on a workpiece (a dispenser module dispensing a viscous fluid according to a profile) ;
a vision module generating original images by photographing the viscous fluid dispensed on the workpiece (a vision module configured to generate an image by photographing a workpiece to which the viscous fluid is dispensed) ;
a robot module moving the dispenser module through predetermined paths (a robot module configured to move the nozzle according to the profile) , respectively; and
a control module. (See, Kim claim 1.)
Kim does not explicitly teach a control module determining whether a defective part exists in the dispensed viscous fluid by analyzing the original images and controlling the dispenser module and the robot module to dispense a viscous fluid to a defective part when the defective part exists.
LePage teaches a control module (vision PC or other vision processor) determining whether a defective part (32, 50) exists in the dispensed viscous fluid by analyzing the original images and controlling the dispenser module (10) and the robot module (12) to dispense a viscous fluid (another bead 14) to a defective part (50 or gap 22) when the defective part exists. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include a control module determining whether a defective part exists in the dispensed viscous fluid by analyzing the original images and controlling the dispenser module and the robot module to dispense a viscous fluid to a defective part when the defective part exists; because LePage teaches this is effective for repairing defects which may occur and locating the defect to facilitate more efficient repair. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
Kim does not explicitly teach an apparatus for inspecting and repairing a dispensed viscous fluid.
LePage teaches for inspecting and repairing a dispensed viscous fluid (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include a robot module moving the vision module through predetermined path, because LePage teaches this is effective for repairing defects which may occur and locating the defect to facilitate more efficient repair. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
Kim does not explicitly teach a robot module moving the vision module through predetermined path.
LePage teaches a robot module (12) moving the dispenser module (10) and the vision module (18) through predetermined paths (dispensing path for the dispenser in paragraph 12; separately move the camera to separate locations for bead inspection in paragraph 12). (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include a robot module moving the vision module through predetermined path because LePage teaches this is effective for positioning the camera in optimal location for bead inspection. (See LePage, Abstract, paragraphs 2-4, 9-12, 14-18.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part.
Telleria teaches a coating system including a computing device that generates instructions for driving the end effector to perform at least one coating task.
Telleria teaches a correction module (1905) forming a shape of the viscous fluid. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 42, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.) Examiner is considering adjusting the setting on blowers collected by sensors to provide a coating with the desired composition and thickness to be equivalent to forms a shape of the viscous fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part; because Telleria teaches this processing step can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 42, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach a forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part.
Schlatterbeck teaches coating on a substrate.
Further, Schlatterbeck teaches use of air is a known way to smooth coating on the recently coated surfaces. (See Schlatterbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 42, 84.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a correction module forming a shape of the viscous fluid by discharging air to the viscous fluid dispensed to a defective part for repairing the defective part; because Schlatterbeck teaches the discharge of air can be useful to improve the finish of the coating. (See Schlatterbeck, Abstract, paragraphs 11, 42, 84.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part.
Telleria controlling the robot module (100, 160M) and the correction module (1905) to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part. (See Telleria, paragraphs 66, 142)
Examiner is considering “optimize delivery of the coating… controlling the number of passes over a give spot” to be equivalent to “controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute controlling the robot module and the correction module to correct the shape of the viscous fluid additionally dispensed to the defective part, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper number of passes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal delivery for the desired properties of the coating including (height and shape). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 66, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 142-143, 146, 169, and 174-175.)
Regarding claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach the control module includes a processor and a storage which is communicatively connected to the processor and stores program codes.
Telleria teaches the control module includes a processor (processor) and a storage (memory) which is communicatively connected to the processor (executed by the processor) and stores program codes (execution of tasks) (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 77, 98, 100, 141, 145, 150-151, 153, and 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the control module includes a processor and a storage which is communicatively connected to the processor and stores program codes; because Telleria teaches this structure would enable the coating to be performed by the automated system. (See Telleria, Abstract, paragraphs 32-33, 40, 46, 63, 73, 79, 127, 136-137, 139, 169, and 174-175.)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-8 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. US Pat. Pub. No. 20100221449 A1 to Schlatterbeck et al (hereinafter Schlatterbeck) has been added to address amendments to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. Pub. No. 20180009000 A1 to Shang et al (hereinafter Shang) cites a robot controlled dispenser and vision guided system for sealing operations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717