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 .
The amendment of September 23, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 6 is canceled, claims 17-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 13, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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: “material applicator” in claims 1, 15 and other pending claims.
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 § 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 1-5, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten et al (US 5130173) in view of Seubert et al (US 2021/0001369), Latvis (US 2004/0083957), Beier et al (US 2015/0042716) and Inukai et al (US 2005/0005794)
Claim 1, 2, 8: Barten teaches a method of coating (painting) a substrate (object) (note column 1, lines 5-15), where the process comprises preheating a first portion of the substrate 10 (that is, the front surface, for example) to a first temperature (note figure and column 2, lines 20-35), and ejecting a first material from a material applicator (26) so that the first material is applied to the preheated first portion of the substrate (note the figure and column 2, lines 20-40). The first material includes a first solvent component and a first coating component (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 10, where there is solvent such as water or organic solvent, and paint component such as zinc or chrome). The first temperature is greater than the ambient temperature and less than a boiling point of the first coating component (note column 1, lines 1-10 and claim 1, where the temperature is indicated as higher than room temperature—so higher than ambient, and also below the boiling point of the solvent, and as well the Examiner would take Official Notice that the top temperature of 160 degrees F, for example, would be below the boiling point of a first component of zinc or chrome).
(I) Barten does not specifically teach that the first material applicator is such as to meet the requirements of the applicator under 35 USC 112(f) understanding. Barten does describe desire to manufacture automobile parts, for example, with the application of paint.
Seubert describes a material applicator that can be used to apply paint to items such as automotive vehicles (note 0002, 0004, 0031), where the applicator can be that with an array of microapplicators each with a plurality of apertures through which atomized droplets of material M are ejected (note figures 2A, 2B, and 0034-0035) understood to correspond to figures 2, 4 of applicant, and the description in the specification as filed, so meeting “material applicator” requirements under 35 USC 112(f)).
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 Barten to use a material applicator as described by Seubert with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Barten is using a spray material applicator to apply paint to automotive parts, for example, and Seubert indicates a desirable paint applicator that would provide a “spray” ejecting of droplets that can apply paint for automotive use.
(II) As to the preheating performed by a heater located on a robotic tool that also has the material applicator located on the tool (as desired by claim 2) and the heater can direct the heat in a targeted manner to a first portion of the substrate that is less than an entirety of the substrate (as in claim 4), Seubert indicates how the material applicator can be located on a robotic tool (note figure 1 and 0033).
Latvis indicates that the it can be desirable to preheat a substrate before coating such as by spraying with a liquid (material) coating applicator (note figure 1, 0013, 0020), where a movable applicator 58 can be provided (here to rotate around a workpiece pipeline), where a preheater 50 (such as providing induction or IR heating) is attached to the coating applicator (by way of carriage 44) and moves in front of the coating applicator, heating the section that will be coated by the applicator (note figure 1, 0013-0014, 0016, 0020). The heater can be controlled to provide the desired heating to the substrate (note 0018-0019). Latvis notes that the heater can be attached such that heating of the substrate can be provided before coating or after coating (note 0020).
Beier describes how a robotic tool can be provided to which a material applicator is provided to provide coating paint on an automobile, for example (note figures 1, 2, 0122-0123). The robotic tool can also have a heater attached that can heat the substrate note 0101-0102) and where it is indicated that pre-heating and post-heating can be provided (note 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barten in view of Seubert to also provide the preheating and coating using a heater and the material applicator located on a robotic tool as suggested by Latvis and Beier with an expectation of predictably acceptable preheating and coating results, since Seubert indicates how it is known to provide material applicators as suggested for use on a robotic tool for use, and Latvis would further indicate how when providing pretreating before applying a liquid coating using a spray type applicator, it is known to provide the applicator and preheater are attached together and both move over the substrate, and Beier would indicate when providing an applicator on a robotic tool, a heater can also be attached to the tool, suggesting that when using an applicator that is on a robotic tool such indicated by Seubert, a heater can also be attached, and such attached heater/robot combination can predictably and acceptably used to preheat a surface to be coated. Additionally, using the heater/applicator on the robotic tool combo as suggested above, it would further be suggested that the heater can direct the heat in a targeted manner to a first portion of the substrate that is less than an entirety of the substrate with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as suggested by Latvis, which indicates how the heat would be provided in advance to the substrate at a particular area/first portion before the coating applied (note figure 1, 0012), and as well, Beier would also suggest how it can be desired to provide the coating to a specific area (and thus the preheating also only needed in this specific area where coating to be applied) (note 0123, figure 1).
(III) as to preheating a second portion of the substrate to a second temperature that is different from the first temperature (claim 1), and applying a second material by ejecting from the material applicator(claim 1), where the second material has a second solvent component and a second coating component different from the first coating component (claim 8), to the preheated second portion of the substrate (claim 1) where the second temperature is greater than ambient temperature and less than a boiling point of the first coating component (claim 1) and where the second temperature is greater than ambient temperature and less than a boiling point of the second coating component (claim 8), Barten would indicate that different paints can be selected (noting water or organic solvent based, for example) with different temperatures possible for the substrate (note the possible range) (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 10). Barten would indicate that a range of preheating temperatures can be selected from (note column 2, lines 25-30, claim 1), and that preheating acts to shorten the drying time (note column 2,line 50 to column 3, line 5, column 1, lines 5-15, and since temperature is selected from a range to give such shortening, the temperature would be considered a result effective variable to adjust the time of drying). Latvis notes how the substrate temperature can be adjusted/varied using the heater (note 0016-0019) and how heat can be provided to a targeted specific area (note 0020). Beier indicates how it can be desired to provide two different color of paints (so two different paints) to two different areas (note figure 1, 7a, 7b, for example, 0123, 0082), where Beier also notes that there can be a range of preheating temperatures (note 0019), where the provision of different colors would indicate that different coating components are present to give the different colors. Additionally, in Beier, there can be different solvents (note 0085). Seubert also notes applying two different color of paints (so two different paints/materials/components) to two different areas on the substrate where both materials would be ejected by the same material applicator in use (note 0052).
Additionally, Inukai describes how coatings can be applied using water or organic solvent based coatings (note 0028) and when applying such coatings, it is desired to preheat the substrate to provide a desired temperature of 35 degrees C or more during coating (note 0023), where heat can be provided by IR heating, etc. (note 0033), where it is desired for the temperature to be controlled based on the lowest boiling temperature of the solvent of the coating (note 0037-0042), where heating can be by preheating before coating (note 0042, figure 1, 0156). The temperature range can also be 35 to 0.8*Tblow (degrees C) (Tblow being the lowest boiling point of a solvent in the coating) (note 0037), so below the boiling point of the solvent in the coating solution. Inukai further indicates that providing the heating to the desired temperature range will substantially reduce the time for drying needs after the coating, where the time needed to raise the temperature of the substrate (note 0023-0024).
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 Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis and Beier to provide the use of multiple different (first and second) coating materials with different solvents and coating components applied by ejection using the material apparatus to different (first and second) portions of the substrate, respectively, and to provide a second different preheating temperature for the second portion where the second coating material is to be applied, but which would still be greater than ambient and lower than the boiling point of the first and second coating component as further suggested by Inuaki with an expectation of providing a desirable product, since Barten would indicate how possible different coating materials, with different solvents, could be used, where controlled preheating lessens the drying time, Latvis would indicate how specific areas can be preheated using an adjustable heating system, which would allow for different temperatures in different areas, Seubert and Beier would indicate providing different paints in different areas (such as to give different colors, which would indicate different coating components as well, for different colors) with Beier indicating preheating before painting and Seubert indicating how the same material apparatus can be used for ejecting different coatings, and Inukai indicates how when providing different coatings that can have organic solvent or water base, for example, the preheating temperature used is optimized based on the specific low boiling point solvent used, thus suggesting to optimizing the preheating temperature in each separate portion where different coating material is to be applied, allowing different temperatures, based on the specific coatings used when applying more than one coating, and providing heating to the desired temperature in each portion before each of the different coatings applied, where each coating would also use temperatures in the range of Barten, so giving the same results of temperature above ambient for the first and second coating materials and below the boiling point of the first and second solvents, and since Barten would indicate an acceptable preheating temperature would be below the boiling point of such first component, it would have been predictably acceptable that the temperature is also below the boiling point of the second component and first component, and the features of claims 1, 2, and 8 provided, where Inukai also indicates using the controlled preheating temperature to lessen drying time.
Claim 3: in Barten, the preheating can be performed by an infrared (IR) heater (note column 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 4: when using the heater/applicator on the robotic tool combo as suggested for above, it would further be suggested that the heater can direct the heat in a targeted manner to a first portion of the substrate that is less than an entirety of the substrate with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as suggested by Latvis, which indicates how the heat would be provided in advance to the substrate at a particular area/first portion before the coating applied (note figure 1, 0012), and as well, Beier would also suggest how it can be desired to provide the coating to a specific area (and thus the preheating also only needed in this specific area where coating to be applied) (note 0123, figure 1).
Claim 5: in Barten the preheating can be preformed with a heater that directs heat to an entirety of the substrate (note the figure and column 3, lines 1-10, where the object/substrate in general is heated, which would indicate the entire substrate heated, or at least suggest such heating as there is no limitation that only heating part of the substrate required).
Claim 10: when using the heater/applicator on the robotic tool combo as suggested above, the heater would be operated at the same time as the material applicator ejects the first material (as suggested by Barton, note figure 1), and moving the heater and the material applicator, relative to the substrate, along a path such that the first portion is heated by the heater before the ejected first material applied to the first portion, would be suggested by Latvis and Beier with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as Latvis indicates moving the heater and applicator relative to the substrate along a path such that the first portion is heated by the heater before the ejected first material applied to the first portion (note 0020), and Beier would also indicate moving the applicator relative to the substrate (figure 1).
Claim 11: Barten would indicate that the preheating of the first portion is performed by a heater (note figure, column 2, lines 20-30) and the heater operated at the same time as the material applicator ejecting the first material (note the figure with the heater operating as substrates passed to the spray booth with material application also occurring, column 2, lines 20-40). The substrate, relative to the material applicator and heater, is moved along a path such that the first portion is heated by the heater before the ejected first material is applied to the first portion (note figure 1, column 2, lines 20-40).
Claim 12 as to the first temperature, Barten teaches a temperature of 110-160 degrees F (43.4-71.11 degrees C) (note column 2, lines 1-10), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize the temperature used, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 13, 14: as to the first temperature sufficient to evaporate solvent to increase the viscosity as claimed, Barten indicates that there will be flash off of solvent (at ambient temperature) after the preheating/paint applied (note figure, column 2, lines 50-65) and that the preheating process acts to substantially lower the length of the drying oven used (note column 2, line 55 to column 3, line 10), so it is understood that the viscosity will increase shortly after coating (at least in the flash off area), and this would at least partially be due to the preheating, given the shortened drying oven time, and since there is a range of preheat temperature usable (note column 2, lines 20-30) and the indication of desired decreased drying time (less oven length), but also that it is desired that temperature not too high to give excessive solvent removal (note column 1, lines 65-68) then it would have been obvious to optimize the temperature to optimize the amount of solvent removal/viscosity increase over time, giving a result 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).
Claims 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai as applied to claims 1-5, 8 and 10-14above, and further in view of Japan 2006-181498 (hereinafter ‘498).
Claims 15: when using the heater/applicator on the robotic tool combo as suggested for claims 1, 2 and 8 above, as to preheating a second portion of the substrate to a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature and less than a boiling point of the first coating component, with the second portion of the substrate being closer to a vertical orientation than the first portion of the substrate, and ejecting the first material from the material applicator so that the first material is applied to the preheated second portion of the substrate (note for claim 15, the other features of the claim provided by Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai as discussed for claim 1 above, note that claim 1 refers to ejecting a second material from the material applicator, however, in claim 1 there is no limit as to what the “second material” is, so it could be the same as the ”first material” in claim 1), Barten would indicate that a range of preheating temperatures can be selected from (note column 2, lines 25-30, claim 1), and that preheating acts to shorten the drying time (note column 2,line 50 to column 3, line 5, column 1, lines 5-15, and since temperature is selected from a range to give such shortening, the temperature would be considered a result effective variable to adjust the time of drying). Seubert notes how an automobile can be painted, which would have more vertical and more horizontal surfaces (note figure 1, 0031). Beier also indicates how automobiles can be painted (figure 1), where Beier also notes that there can be a range of preheating temperatures (note 0019).
‘498 describes painting an automobile body, for example (note page 2, translation), and indicates providing an intermediate coating layer (note page 2, translation), where it is noted that one portion of substrate body to be coated is a horizontal portion and a second portion of the body to be coated is a vertical portion (note pages 2-3, translation), where the intermediate coating can be applied by spraying/atomizing using a paint with water or organic solvent, and it is indicated that in the horizontal coating step, the horizontal portions are coated (such as hood, roof, trunk) and in the vertical coating step the mainly vertical portions are coated (note page 3, translation), where it is provided that the drying time for the coating applied to the horizontal portion has a longer drying time than that for the coating applied to the vertical portion such that the solvent evaporation rate from the horizontal portion is slower than the solvent evaporation rate from the vertical portion (note page 3, translation), where this improves the smoothness of the overall coating and sagging prevented (note page 2, translation).
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 Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai to provide preheating a second portion of the substrate to a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature and less than a boiling point of the first coating component, with the second portion of the substrate being closer to a vertical orientation than the first portion of the substrate, and ejecting the first material from the material applicator so that the first material is applied to the preheated second portion of the substrate as further suggested by ‘498 with an expectation of providing a desirable product without sagging, since Barten would indicate how a range of preheating temperatures could be used, Barten and Inukai would indicate that there is a relationship between preheating temperature and drying time for coatings, where Inuaki indicates how time of drying reduction can be linked to the time needed to raise the temperature of the substrate coating/substrate for drying (note 0023, 0024, 0156), and thus higher preheating temperatures indicated to give faster drying time, Latvis would indicate how specific areas can be preheated using an adjustable heating system, which would allow for different temperatures in different areas, and Seubert and Beier indicate how automobiles can be coated, and ‘498 indicates how when painting an object like an automobile where there would be horizontal portions (first portions) and vertical portions (second portions) by spraying/atomizing a water or organic solvent based paint, it would be desirable to provide drying conditions such that the solvent evaporation/drying for the vertical portions is faster than the solvent evaporation/drying of the horizontal portions, where since Barten and Inukai are indicating to use the preheating temperature to shorten the drying time, it would have been understood that by providing a higher preheating temperature to the second vertical portion from the range of possible preheating temperatures and a lower preheating temperature to the first horizontal portion from the range of possible preheating temperatures, the drying rate for the second vertical portion would be faster than for the first horizontal portion, giving the desired relative drying speeds and preventing sagging. It would further be understood that the second temperature would still be less than the boiling point of the first coating component, as this would be in a range desired by Barten.
Claim 7: when providing the first temperature it would further be suggested that when providing the process as discussed for claims 1, 8 above, the first temperature (for the more horizontal surfaces) would be adjusted due to orientation with respect to gravity of the first portion of the substrate (since the sag correction for vertical and horizontal surfaces by adjusting the relative heating would be based on the effect of gravity for vertical vs. horizontal surfaces).
Claim 16: when providing the process of claim 15 as discussed above, when using the heater/applicator on the robotic tool combo as suggested for claims 1, 2 above, it would further be suggested that the heater can direct the heat in a targeted manner to a first portion of the substrate that is less than an entirety of the substrate and in a targeted manner to a second portion of the substrate that is less than an entirety of the substrate with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as suggested by Latvis, which indicates how the heat would be provided in advance to the substrate at a particular area/first portion before the coating applied (note figure 1, 0012), and as well, Beier would also suggest how it can be desired to provide the coating to a specific area (and thus the preheating also only needed in this specific area where coating to be applied) (note 0123, figure 1), and when providing the two different portions with two different heatings as suggested by ‘498, it would be desired to provide the heating in a targeted material to provide the specific heat desired for each portion to that desired portion.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai as applied to claims 1-5, 8 and 10-14 above, and further in view of Chu Yuk Man (US 2007/0022624).
Claim 9: as to adjusting the first temperature based on a characteristic of the first coating component, such as a heat transfer coefficient, as indicated by Barten, there is a range of temperatures to optimize for the first temperature (note column 2, lines 25-30), and in Barten the process is desired to be used to shorten the drying time for paint (note column 1, lines 5-15).
Chu Yuk Man indicates that when drying paint, the drying time is affected by the heat transfer coefficient of the paint (note 0002).
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 Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai to optimize the first temperature (preheating temperature) based on the heat transfer coefficient of the paint (and the components of the paint) to as to provide for optimum drying as suggested by Chu Yuk Man to provide desirable drying, since Barten is concerned with shortening the drying time for paint, and Chu Yuk Man indicates that the drying time of paint is also affected by the coefficient of heat transfer of the paint, so that would be a suggested variable to take into account when determining preheating temperature as a part of shortening drying time, and further the individual heat transfer coefficients of the paint components would also predictably and acceptably be taken into account as affecting the resulting heat transfer coefficient of the paint.
Polierer (US 2002/0109767) notes preheating a substrate surface to 24-50 degrees C before applying a coating material (note 0018-0019, figure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
(a) Note that the rejections have been adjusted.
(b) as to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of “material applicator”, applicant argues that they do not concede the correctness of this interpretation, however, no arguments were provided as to why this interpretation should not be the case and therefore the interpretation is maintained.
(c) as to the claim objections, this has been withdrawn due to the cancelation of claim 6.
(d) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1, etc. using Barten in view of Seubert, it is argued that the new features of the second portion preheating are not provided by the references, where Barten and Seubert do not provide the second portion preheating features, and ‘498 (used for claims 6, 7, 15, 16) discloses different drying times for coatings applied to different areas, but does not disclose using different preheating times for different portions, where coatings are applied in a wet on wet manner onto vertical and horizontal parts of an object and placing the object in a drying oven. It is also argued that Beier would not disclose preheating a second portion to a second temperature and ejecting a second material from the material applicator to the preheated second portion, as it does not disclose preheating a second portion of the substrate to a second temperature that is different than the first temperature and ejecting a second material from an applicator so that the second material is applied to the preheated second portion. Instead, it is argued, Beier discloses heating the surface of the body in a oven for a predetermined time.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. As to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-14, the rejections have been adjusted to use Barten in view of Seubert, Latvis, Beier and Inukai due to the amendments to the claims. Therefore, as to these claims, arguments as to ‘498 do not apply. Seubert and Beier both indicate how it can be desired to apply first and second different paints to first and second different portions, respectively, of an automotive substrate, for example. Note Seubert at 0052 (where the same applicator can be used), and Beier at 0123, 0082. Thus, it would be suggested to eject first material as claimed from the applicator to coat a first portion of the substrate and a second material from the applicator to coat a second portion of the substrate from the suggestion of these references. As to providing first and second preheating, respectively, to the first and second portions at different temperatures, Barten would indicate how different paints can have different solvents, for example (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 10), Beier similarly notes how different coatings/paints can have different materials/solvents (such as water based or solvent based) (note 0084). Barten indicates that the preheating used for different paints/solvents can be adjusted based on the materials used (note column 1, lines 55-65), and how the preheating acts to shorten after painting drying time (note column 1, lines 5-15). Beier notes that a range of temperatures can be used for preheat (note 0019), and Inukai also notes providing preheating to heat the surface of a substrate before coating to substantially shorten the time for drying, where preheating shortens the time needed for raising the temperature of the substrate and coating on substrate for drying (note 0023, 0024, 0156), and also notes optimizing the temperature for this in a specific range based on the solvent boiling point in the coating (note 0037-0038). Therefore, it is indicated that optimization of temperature for preheating can be used to shorten drying time, and further the optimization of temperature for preheating would be desirably selected based on the specific coating used, so it would be suggested that if different portions of the substrate are to have different coatings/paints applied, the substrate should be heated to different temperatures in the different portions, based on the coating to be applied to those portions. Latvis would further suggest that this can be provided, as it is known to preheat a specific portion of the substrate before coating, so controlled heat can be provided to a desired portion of the substrate. While Beier also does not specifically provide preheating a second portion to a second different temperature from the first temperature, the combination of references would suggest this as discussed above.
Furthermore, as to claims 7, 15, 16, as to the condition when a second preheating temperature is used for a second portion where the second coating used is the same as the first coating/material, ‘498 was provided as to the suggestion to adjust the preheating temperature to resultingly affect the drying time in the different portions, since ‘498 indicates that faster drying would be desired for second vertical portions of the substrate as compared to first horizontal portions, when the same coating would be used on different portions. Barten and Inukai, as noted above, indicate the relationship between preheating temperature and drying time for coating, note in Inukai time reduction can be linked to the time needed to raise the temperature of the substrate and coating on the substrate for drying, and thus higher preheating temperatures in the desired range would give faster drying. Thus, the combination of references would indicate the relationship between the preheating temperature and drying temperature and would therefore, suggest that the preheating temperatures provided to different portions of the substrate can differ to give desired faster or slower drying times on these portions of the substrate as desired by ‘498. Applicant refers to ‘498 having wet-on-wet coating, but ‘498 still indicates that there is a benefit to adjust relative drying time for coating, even if overall coating, on vertical vs. horizontal portions, and Barten and Inukai would indicate how another way to adjust the drying time would be through preheating temperatures. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718