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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on October 18, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 18, 2024.
Therefore, after the election, claims 11-12 are withdrawn, and claims 1-10 are pending for examination as filed August 28, 2023.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1, lines 3-4, “where each elongated member occupies, respectively, a plurality of a plurality of pockets” is confusing as worded as to whether (1) there are a plurality of elongated members and a plurality of pockets and each individual one of those members is in one of the pockets, or (2) there are a plurality of elongated members and a plurality of pockets and each individual one of the members is located in two or more pockets. Applicant in the disclosure appears to be showing one member in one pocket (note figure 1), and note also the wording of claim 3. Was the phrasing supposed to be “respectively, a (one) pocket of a plurality of pockets”?. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that option (1) is intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, lines 1-3, has “configuring an applicator head to apply the sprayable product . . .”, however, as worded it is not clear if it is actually required to apply the coating in this manner or whether the head only has to be capable of doing this. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the application is supposed to be in this manner, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 4, line 1, this claim depends from claim 1, but therefore lacks antecedent basis for “the applicator head” which basis is provided in claim 3. Does applicant intend for this claim to depend from claim 3? For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as depending from claim 3, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 4, lines 1-3, has “the applicator head is configured to move along an application path . . .”, however, as worded it is not clear if it is actually required to apply the coating in this manner or whether the head only has to be capable of doing this. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the application is supposed to be in this manner, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 5, line 1, this claim depends from claim 1, but therefore lacks antecedent basis for “the applicator head” which basis is provided in claim 3. Does applicant intend for this claim to depend from claim 3? For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated as depending from claim 3, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 5, lines 1-3, has “the applicator head is configured to apply the sprayable product at an adjustable rate of application . . .”, however, as worded it is not clear if it is actually required to apply the coating in this manner or whether the head only has to be capable of doing this. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the application is supposed to be in this manner, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 5, line 3, “the rail” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “the rail” is treated as intending to be “the elongated member” but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 7, line 1, “the applicator head” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the presence of an applicator head is understood to be present, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 7, lines 3-4, “the application path” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the presence of an application path is understood to be present, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter
Claim 8, lines 1-2, “the tilt angle” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, any tilt angle is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oldham (US 5145526).
Claim 1: Oldham teaches a method of applying a sprayable product (coating, paint, or the like), to a plurality of elongated members (such as chair legs, feet, note the presence of the elongate peg, such that the overall member can be considered elongated) (note figures 1, 3, column 1,lines 5-15, column 2, lines 45-68). The method includes disposing a plurality of elongated members disposed in a vertical orientation, where each of the elongated members is disposed in a respective pocket (note bore 24 and also holder 16 can be considered the pocket) of a plurality of pockets, and the spray product would be sequentially applied to the members while disposed in the pockets (note figures 1, 3, column 2, line 45 to column 3, line 10, column 4, lines 1-20).
Claim 2: The plurality of pockets on each row (and each row can be considered as providing the plurality of pockets to the extent claimed) can be considered as sharing a horizontal datum (such as 27 or 14) (note figures 1-3).
Claim 8: the horizontal datum in claim 2 above can be considered as orthogonal to a tilt angle of the member, since there is no limit in this claim to the tilt angle, and it can be considered as zero for the member placement in figure 3, for example, and so would be orthogonal to the horizontal datum.
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 1-2 and 8-10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham (US 5145526) in view of CN 202932419 (hereinafter ‘419), EITHER alone OR optionally further in view of Warning, Sr. et al (US 4013037).
Claim 1: Oldham teaches a method of applying a sprayable product (coating, paint, or the like), to a plurality of members (such as chair legs, feet, note the presence of the elongate peg) (note figures 1, 3, column 1, lines 5-15, column 2, lines 45-68). The method includes disposing a plurality of members disposed in a vertical orientation, where each of the members is disposed in a respective pocket (note bore 24 and also holder 16 can be considered the pocket) of a plurality of pockets, and the spray product would be sequentially applied to the members while disposed in the pockets (note figures 1, 3, column 2, line 45 to column 3, line 10, column 4, lines 1-20).
As to specifically providing elongated members, Oldham describes that the legs or feet can include a elongate peg part and a spherical main body (note column 2, lines 55-65), but is not limited to this shape/article (note column 4, lines 30-40).
‘419 indicates how chair leg members that would be desired to be coated at the ends with glue/adhesive can be elongated (note figure 1), and at least, would be understood to be in the form of a rectangular cuboid (since the tightly fitting silencing apparatus to be put on the end of the chair leg over the glue is in a cuboid shape that would be rectangular from the chair legs shown, and since tightly fitting, the legs would have the same shape, or at least suggested to have this shape to provide tight fitting, and further the chair legs would be at least suggested to have the rectangular cuboid shape based on conventional chair leg structure) (note figure 1, pages 1-2, translation), where the gluing/silencing apparatus application occurs before being delivered for use (page 2, translation).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oldham to also use the coating process to apply glue/adhesive as a coating material to elongated chair legs to have a silencing apparatus applied to the chair legs as suggested by ‘419 to provide an efficient glue/adhesive coating to ends of chair legs, since Oldham indicates how the process can apply coatings to chair leg ends and ‘419 would also desire to apply coating in the form of glue/adhesive to elongated chair leg ends.
Optionally, using Warning, Warning would further teach that it is well known to spray apply glue (note column 1, lines 1-15, column 3, lines 10-20). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oldham to apply the glue as desired by ‘419 as discussed above with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, from the teaching of Warning that applying glue by spraying is well known to be conventional.
Claim 2: In Oldham, the plurality of pockets on each row (and each row can be considered as providing the plurality of pockets to the extent claimed) can be considered as sharing a horizontal datum (such as 27 or 14) (note figures 1-3).
Claim 8: in Oldham, the horizontal datum in claim 2 above can be considered as orthogonal to a tilt angle of the member, since there is no limit in this claim to the tilt angle, and it can be considered as zero for the member placement in figure 3, for example, and so would be orthogonal to the horizontal datum.
Claim 9: The use of the glue/adhesive product as discussed for claim 1 above, would be suggested from the combination of Oldham and ‘419, EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning.
Claim 10: The elongated member as a rectangular cuboid would be suggested from ‘419 as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (1) Oldham OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 OR 1-2 and 8-10, respectively, above, and further in view of Porter (US 3646521).
Claims 3, 4: As to using an applicator head configured to apply the sprayable product, for each pocket, only when sensing a length of the elongated member in the pocket, and the head is configured to move along an application path so as to apply the sprayable product only along the vertical orientation, Oldham describes applying the paint from a spray gun/applicator head manually, but also indicates that automatic means can be used (note column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 5).
Porter describes providing automatic spraying with an applicator head/spray gun (note abstract, figure 1, column 1, lines 1-20). In such a case, the members to be coated can be moved/conveyed in front of the applicator head (note figure 1, column 2, lines 40-70). Further the system (which includes the applicator head) is configured to apply the sprayable product only when the member to be coated is sensed, where the dimensions, including length/height of the member are sensed, such that the spraying occurs when the member reaches the applicator area (note column 1, lines 55-70, column 3, lines 10-20, at least suggesting sensing data provided to the application head). Furthermore, the applicator head is configured to move along an application path so as to apply the sprayable product only along the desired area, which would be the vertical orientation (noting the vertical movement of the applicator head, and the desired area to be sprayed from Oldham and optionally ‘419) (note column 1, lines 60-75, column 4, lines 15-30, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oldham OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning to provide automatic spraying using an applicator head to apply the sprayable product, and to configure the applicator head to apply the product only when sensing a length of the elongated member in the pocket and where the applicator head is configured to move along an application path so as to apply the sprayable product only along the vertical orientation as suggested by Porter with an expectation of desirably providing coating, since Oldham indicates that an applicator head can be used and the spraying can be provided automatically, where Porter describes how automatic spraying of members can be provided using an applicator head, with the movement of the member by the applicator head (suggesting the members in the pockets can be moved by the applicator head with an expectation of acceptable relative movement to the applicator head) and with the automatic spraying providing to configure the applicator head to apply the product only when sensing a length of the elongated member in the pocket and where the applicator head is configured to move along an application path so as to apply the sprayable product only along the vertical orientation as discussed above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (1) Oldham in view of Porter OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 and Porter, EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Warning, Sr. et al (US 4013037).
Claim 5: as to further configuring the applicator head to apply the sprayable product at an adjustable rate of application to control a volume of the sprayable product applied, Warning would further teach that it is well known to spray apply glue (note column 1, lines 1-15, column 3, lines 10-20). As well, Warning indicates how it would be conventional to control the volume of liquid emitted from a spray head in proportion to the speed at which the surface to be sprayed passes the spray orifice (note column 1, lines 35-45), where, for example, if the conveyor of the article to be coated speeds up, the system is controlled so that liquid flow rate from the head increases, and if the conveyor slows down the liquid flow rate is reduced (note column 2, line 60 to column 3, line 15), which works to provide a constant quantity of liquid to the surface to be coated (note column 1, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oldham in view of Porter OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 and Porter, EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning to further configure the applicator head to apply the sprayable product at an adjustable rate of application to control a volume of the sprayable product applied so as to provide a constant quantity of liquid to the member, for example, as suggested by Warning, which indicates that such adjustment/configuration would be conventional as discussed above to provide a constant quantity of liquid to the surface to be coated. As to the product applied to a “rail” as noted in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, “rail” has been treated as referring to “the elongated member”.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (1) Oldham in view of Porter OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 and Porter, EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Duffy et al (US 2009/0104372).
Claims 6-7: as to having the vertical orientation defined by a tilt angle of between 6-10 degrees relative to a plumb line, and the applicator head oriented at an angle of incidence relative to the tilt angle so that a distal end of the elongated member has sprayable product applied thereto as the applicator head finishes the application path, Porter would suggest the use of the applicator head having an application path, where as shown in figure 1, the path can include the applicator head going in an upward directions as the path which could finish at the top, and at least predictably and acceptably do so, as an optional area to finish.
Duffy provides how a member to be coated can pass an applicator head while oriented with a vertical orientation (note the figure) where the orientation can be such as to have a generally up and down profile, being more vertically oriented than horizontal, such as to be 85-95 degrees with regard to the horizontal (or -5 to 5 degrees from plumb line) (note 0022) (corresponding to tilt angle as claimed), where the applicator head can give horizontally oriented spray of the reverse angle of 85-95 degrees with regard to the vertical (note 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oldham in view of Porter OR (2) Oldham in view of ‘419 and Porter, EITHER alone OR further in view of Warning to provide that the vertical orientation can be more or less than exactly 90 degrees to the horizontal (or 0 degrees from plumb line) as indicated by Duffy as conventional when providing spraying of articles oriented with a vertical orientation, where Duffy allows for more vertical than horizontal, which would overlap with the claimed tilt angle, and gives examples slightly outside the range, but the general teaching would at least suggest to optimize, giving tilt angles in the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Duffy would further indicate orienting the applicator held at an angle of incidence relative to the tilt angle as discussed above, where it would be suggested to apply the product to the distal end when the applicator finishes the application path, because in Oldham it would be desired to finish to the top (distal end) to give the desired appearance to the whole feet/legs. Additionally, when using ‘419 it would be desired to finish to the distal end of the chair leg, for example, to provide the even spreading of glue where the silencing apparatus is to be applied (note page 2, translation, figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718