DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 23-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 20th, 2026. Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the claim limitations under 112(f) was found persuasive and the claim interpretations under 112(f) has been revoked.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“one and more” in ln. 1-2 should be revised to “one or more”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 4-9, 13-15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshino et al. (US 20090320753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino discloses a treatment system (1, Fig. 1) for treating workpieces (7, shown in Fig. 1), the treatment system (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
an enclosure (2, Fig. 1) which surrounds a treatment chamber (internal space within paint booth 2, shown in Fig. 1);
a conveying device (8, Fig. 1) by which at least one workpiece (7, Fig. 1) can be at least one of: (i) introduced into the treatment chamber, (ii) guided through the treatment chamber, or (iii) discharged from the treatment chamber (Paragraph 0027); and
an application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece (7, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0029),
wherein the application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) is configured to apply the fluid to an outer surface of the at least one workpiece (7, Fig. 1) and to an inner surface of the at least one workpiece (7, Fig. 1) within the treatment chamber (internal space within paint booth 2, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0029, 0068).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, wherein the treatment includes a degreasing process, a rinsing process, or a coating process (Paragraph 0008).
In regards to claim 4, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, wherein the application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) includes one or more rotatable application units (5, 6, Fig. 1), by which a rotating spray pattern can be produced on the workpiece (Paragraph 0027).
With respect to claim 5, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, the application device (7, Fig. 1) has a plurality of coupled or synchronized application units (interpreting synchronized as to happen at the same time, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 5, 6, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 6, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, total spray patterns on the workpiece (7, Fig. 1) can be produced by a plurality of application units (5, 6, shown in Fig. 1) of the application device (5, 6, shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. Yoshino discloses the application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) includes a plurality of application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) which can be moved together by a distributor device (3, Fig. 1) of the application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) to supply the fluid to the application units (5, 6, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0008, 0027).
With respect to claim 8, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, wherein, during an application process for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece, the at least one workpiece can be moved by the conveying device or a movement device (8, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. Yoshino further discloses application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber (total length of internal space within paint booth 2, shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the workpiece (7, Fig. 1) can be moved relative to the application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units (5, 6, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, the application device (5, 6, Fig. 1) includes a plurality of application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) which are arranged in a grid-like or matrix-like form, in particular on one or two opposite side walls of the treatment chamber (internal space within paint booth 2, shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. Yoshino discloses one or more application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) can be moved during the application of fluid (Paragraphs 0027, 0029-0034).
With respect to claim 15, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. Yoshino discloses a plurality of lines or rows of the one or more application units (shown in Fig. 1), can be rotated or pivoted during the application of fluid (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 23, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 5, wherein the application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) are coupled or synchronized with one another such that spray jets applied to the workpiece (7, Fig. 1) by the application units strike different surface regions of the workpiece at any time (shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0028-0034).
With respect to claim 24, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 14, wherein a plurality of the one and more application units (5, 6, Fig. 1) arranged in a regular or grid-like or matrix-like form can be linearly during the application of fluid (shown in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US 20090320753 A1) in view of Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. However, Yoshino does not disclose the fluid can be applied to the workpiece in one or more time-varying spray patterns by the application device.
Funseth teaches a treatment system (entire system, Fig. 2) comprising the fluid can be applied to the workpiece in one or more time-varying spray patterns by the application device (2A, valves of nozzle 2A can be time varied to allow fluid to be sprayed at a duty cycle compared to a total time of operation, to create different spray patterns, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0076, 0080).
Yoshino and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the application device taught in Funseth’s system to Yoshino’s system, to allow Yoshino’s application device to have the fluid can be applied to the workpiece in one or more time-varying spray patterns. There is a motivation to combine the application device taught in Funseth’s system to Yoshino’s system because doing so provides spray that takes into account other factors, such as speed, location, and nozzle distance to provide for more accurate and uniform spray (Funseth, Paragraphs 0066, 0068).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US 20090320753 A1) in view of Belanger (US 20060157093 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. However, Yoshino does not explicitly disclose relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner by at least one of: (i) a proximity sensor, (ii) an incremental encoder, or (iii) in terms of time.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor (160, sensor assemblies 160 can be sonic, optic, or a combination of both to detect movement of the vehicle in the carriage assembly 14, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0051).
Yoshino and Belanger are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the proximity sensor taught in Belanger’s system to Yoshino’s system, to allow Yoshino’s system to have relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor. There is a motivation to combine the proximity sensor taught in Belanger’s system to Yoshino’s system because doing so provides a mechanically simplified structure to efficiently move spray nozzles about a workpiece to optimize the spray (Belanger, Paragraphs 0007, 0011).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (US 20090320753 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 20190374966 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Yoshino discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. However, Yoshino does not disclose acceleration of relative movement can be adjusted.
Thompson teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising acceleration of relative movement can be adjusted (controller 74 provides information of a negative or positive acceleration of the AMS, and allows for acceleration to be controlled based on a user input, Paragraphs 0048, 0086, 0088).
Yoshino and Thompson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treatment systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have acceleration of relative movement can be adjusted, doing so allows the system to have a threshold acceleration and determine an unexpected movement, which can cause unwanted spray (Thompson, Paragraph 0087).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13-15, and 23-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
