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 April 30, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 6 and 17-20 are canceled, and claims 1-5 and 7-16 and new claim 21 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Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 21 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), Ueno et al (US 5349169) and Inukai et al (US 2005/0005794)
Claim 1, 8, 21: 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)). Seubert also notes that the paint can be applied to other than automotive vehicles, such as appliances and industrial equipment (note 0031).
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 or other components as well.
(II) 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), and where the first portion of the substrate is a top side of the substrate and the second portion of the substrate is an underside of the substrate that is opposite the top side (claim 1),
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). 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, Ueno describes making an appliance/microwave oven where it is desirable to provide internal chamber walls which are coated (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 10). The walls are described as being made from sheet steel, with one set of paint applied on one side (note strontium chromium-resin as primer, and paint applied over the primer, such as with polyester containing paint) and another different set of paint applied on the other opposite side (such as zinc phosphate primer paint, with a fluoroplastic or polyester resin top coat/paint), where one side described as a front side and the other as the back side (note figure 5, for example, column 1, lines 1-20, column 4, lines 1-30).
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). The substrate can be metal (noting aluminum described) (note 0091). The coatings can be polymer/resin based (note 0102, 0123-0124).
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 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, where the first portion is a top side of the substrate and the second portion is an underside of the substrate that is opposite the top side, 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 Ueno and Inuaki with an expectation of providing a desirable product, since Barten as shown in figure 1 describes how a front surface of a substrate component can be preheated and coated with paint, and would indicate how possible different coating materials, with different solvents, could be used, where controlled preheating lessens the drying time, and Seubert would indicate an applicator to use applying the paint which can coat various components, including appliances, and Ueno would indicate how for an appliance such as a microwave it can be desired to coat both a front and back opposite surface of a component article (described microwave wall) with different paints on the opposite sides of the component, and thus it would be desired to coat a first portion of a front side of the substrate and a second portion of a back opposite side of the substrate with different paints respectively, 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, and 8 provided, where Inukai also indicates using the controlled preheating temperature to lessen drying time, and thus to provide the desirable paint structure of Ueno, there would be a first paint, etc. provided with a first solvent/coating component (as described as how to provide paint) and the first portion of the substrate (front side) would be preheated to a first temperature as claimed and then first material would be ejected from the applicator as described by Seubert for paint use to the preheated first portion of the substrate, and then the process repeated for the opposite back/second portion of the substrate where a second different paint with a second solvent/coating component (as described as how to provide paint) and the second portion of the substrate would be preheated to a second temperature as claimed and then second material would be ejected from the applicator as described by Seubert for paint use to the preheated second portion of the substrate. Furthermore the front side can be considered a top side (given how Barten indicates applying painting to a top side to coat the component) and the back side can be considered an underside, where the coating/paint applied to the underside as claimed could either be provided by (1) after providing the first painting/drying to the top side, then flipping the component over to provide the same feed through the coating system as in Barten using the same material applicator to repeat the coating process on the other side or (2) if “the” material applicator in claim 1 considered a number of the paint applicators as in Seubert, it further would have been obvious that the heating/coating of the underside can be accomplished by providing a second set of preheater and applicator underneath the first preheater and applicator using a conveyor that heat/coating can pass through with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, noting MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and (C) indicating the conventional expectation of the same results by duplicating/providing more parts and/or rearranging parts, and that for claim 21, this would also provide that the first and second portions of the substrate can be preheated and have coating ejected simultaneously to provide efficient application.
Claim 3: in Barten, the preheating can be performed by an infrared (IR) heater (note column 2, lines 20-30), indicating use of an IR heater for the preheating processes.
Claim 5: in Barten the preheating can be performed 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 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 for the particular paints 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 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten in view of Seubert, Ueno and Inukai as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 21 above, and further in view of Walter et al (US 2018/0229440).
Claim 2: As to providing the heater located on a robotic tool, where the material applicator is also located on the robotic tool, Barten shows a separate preheat process and spray process with a heating applicator and paint applicator (note figure 1), and describing a transfer section where heat not provided between the heating section and application section (note column 2, lines 20-35). Seubert indicates how the material applicator can be located on a robotic tool (note figure 1 and 0033).
Walter describes how a substrate can be preheated and a primer coating of a polymer based material with solvent can be applied to a substrate (note figure 2, 0049, 0054-0058, 0063-0064, 0099-0102) where the heat is provided by a heater and the coating by a material spray applicator where both are attached to a robotic tool (note figure 2, 0100-0102), and where there is a separation between where the heat applied and the coating applied (note 0102-0103), and where the heater can use hot gas (note 0098), but is also indicated that other heaters such as IR heaters can be used (note 0064).
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, Ueno and Inukai to provide the heater and material applicator located on a robotic tool as described by Walter with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Barten is using a heater followed by a spray material applicator to apply paint, with a gap between heating and application, and Seubert indicates a desirable paint applicator that can be provided on a robotic tool, and Walter indicates that a similar providing of preheating to a substrate, followed by a gap, followed by coating application by spraying can be provided by using a robotic tool that has both the heater and the applicator located on the tool.
Claim 4: when using Walter as discussed for claim 2 above, Walter further indicates how heating can be applied to only a portion of the substrate at a time where the first portion is less than the entirety of the substrate (note figure 2, 0102), giving a suggested method of heating.
Claim 10: when using Waler as discussed for claim 2 above, 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 Walter, note figure 2), 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 Walter with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as Water 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 figure 2, 0102).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten in view of Seubert, Uneo and Inukai as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 21 above, and further in view of Japan 2006-181498 (hereinafter ‘498).
Claims 7: as to adjusting the first temperature based on an orientation, with respect to gravity, of the first portion of the substrate, 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).
‘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, Ueno and Inukai to provide preheating adjusting the first temperature, based on an orientation, with respect to gravity, of the first 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, and Seubert indicates how automobiles can be coated which would have different orientations due to gravity, and ‘498 indicates how when painting an object like an automobile where there would be more horizontal portions (first portions) and more 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 vertical portions would be faster than for horizontal portions, giving the desired relative drying speeds and preventing sagging, and therefore 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barten in view of Seubert, Ueno and Inukai as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 21 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, Ueno 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.
Claims 15 and 16 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), Walter et al (US 2018/0229440), Inukai et al (US 2005/0005794) and Japan 2006-181498 (hereinafter ‘498)
Claim 15: 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)). Seubert also notes that the paint can be applied to other than automotive vehicles, such as appliances and industrial equipment (note 0031).
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 or other components as well.
(II) As to the preheating of the first portion of the substrate performed by a heater located on a robotic tool, where the applicator is located on the tool adjacent the heater, Barten shows a separate preheat process and spray process with a heating applicator and paint applicator (note figure 1), and describing a transfer section where heat not provided between the heating section and application section (note column 2, lines 20-35). Seubert indicates how the material applicator can be located on a robotic tool (note figure 1 and 0033).
Walter describes how a substrate can be preheated and a primer coating of a polymer based material with solvent can be applied to a substrate (note figure 2, 0049, 0054-0058, 0063-0064, 0099-0102) where the heat is provided by a heater and the coating by a material spray applicator where both are attached to a robotic tool (note figure 2, 0100-0102), and where there is a separation between where the heat applied and the coating applied (note 0102-0103), and where the heater can use hot gas (note 0098), but is also indicated that other heaters such as IR heaters can be used (note 0064). Walter shows the heater located adjacent the applicator (note figure 2, where no other device located between the two).
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 to provide the heater and material applicator located adjacent to the heater on a robotic tool as described by Walter with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Barten is using a heater followed by a spray material applicator to apply paint, with a gap between heating and application, and Seubert indicates a desirable paint applicator that can be provided on a robotic tool, and Walter indicates that a similar providing of preheating to a substrate, followed by a gap, followed by coating application by spraying can be provided by using a robotic tool that has both the heater and the applicator located on the tool, with the applicator located adjacent to the heater.
(III) As to preheating a second portion of the substrate to a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature and less than the 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 applicator so that the material is applied to the preheated second portion of the substrate, 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).
‘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).
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 and Walter 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 Inukai and ‘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, Walter would indicate how specific areas can be preheated using an adjustable heating system, which would allow for different temperatures in different areas, and Seubert indicates 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, and then applying the first material from the applicator 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 16: When providing the process discussed for claim 15 above, the heater of Walter suggested for use would direct heat in a targeted manner to the portion of the substrate to be preheated before coating (note figure 2), such that the first desired heat would be provided to the first portion and the second desired heat to the second portion, and the first portion and second portion would each be less than an entirety of the substate (noting the more vertical and less vertical portions of the substate as indicated by Seubert).
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 April 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
(a) Note that the rejections have been adjusted due to the amendments to the claims (such as for claim 1, the new limitations as to the first and second portion, and for claim 15, that the heater and material applicator be located on a robotic tool adjacent each other), with references removed and added references to Ueno and Walter provided.
(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 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1, etc. (1) as to the rejection of claim 1, it is argued that the references do not provide the new placement of the first and second portions, with the first portion a top side and the second portion an underneath side opposite to the top side. The Examiner notes that due to the amendments to the claims, the new rejection of claims 1, etc. is provided using the new reference to Ueno as to the suggestion of such features. New claim 21 is also rejected as discussed in the rejection above.
(2) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 15-16, it is argued that the new robotic tool features are not provided, where Barten requires separation of the preheat oven and spray booth. The Examiner notes that due to the amendments to the claims, the new rejection of claims 15-16 is provided using the new reference to Walter as to the suggestion of such robotic tool features, where the heater and applicator are adjacent on the robotic tool, but there is still a separation between the substrate area where heating applied and area where coating applied.
Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights