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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on March 11th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 11th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“one or more rotatable or rotating application units” in ln. 2 should be revised to either “one or more rotatable application units” or “one or more rotating application units”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a plurality of lines or rows of application units” in ln. 2 should be revised to “a plurality of lines or rows of the one or more application units”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a conveying device” in claim 1, ln. 4 and “an application device” in claim 1, ln. 7.
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. It will be interpreted that an application device is a spray nozzle, as described on pg. 2 of the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a conveying device, by which at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber” in ln. 4-6. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to have a conveying device, by which at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber and can be guided through the treatment chamber and can be discharged from the treatment chamber, or have a conveying device, by which at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber or can be guided through the treatment chamber or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant intends to have a conveying device, by which at least one workpiece can be introduced into the treatment chamber or can be guided through the treatment chamber or can be discharged from the treatment chamber. The examiner recommends revising “and/or” to “and” or “or” to rectify the issue.
Claim limitation “a conveying device” in claim 1, ln. 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not describe a structure for the conveying device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. It will be interpreted that a conveying device is a conveyor or conveyor belt.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the treatment includes a degreasing process and/or a rinsing process and/or a coating process.” in ln. 1-2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to have the treatment includes a degreasing process and a rinsing process and a coating process, or have the treatment includes a degreasing process or a rinsing process or a coating process. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant intends to have the treatment includes a degreasing process or a rinsing process or a coating process. The examiner recommends revising “and/or” to “and” or “or” to rectify the issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the application device has a plurality of coupled and/or synchronized application units which are in particular coupled and/or synchronized with one another” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to have the application device has a plurality of coupled and synchronized application units which are in particular coupled and synchronized with one another, or have the application device has a plurality of coupled or synchronized application units which are in particular coupled or synchronized with one another. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the application device has a plurality of coupled or synchronized application units which are in particular coupled or synchronized with one another. The examiner recommends revising “and/or” to “and” or “or” to rectify the issue.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of application units which can be moved, in particular can be rotated” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “in particular can be” is language that requires a plurality of application units to be rotated. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that “in particular can be” is language that requires a plurality of application units to be rotated. The examiner recommends either revising or omitting this limitation to rectify the issue.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the at least one workpiece can be moved, in particular can be displaced linearly” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “in particular can be” is language that requires the at least one workpiece is moved and displaced linearly. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the at least one workpiece is moved and displaced linearly. The examiner recommends revising or omitting this limitation to rectify the issue.
Claims 9-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, and/or an incremental encoder and/or in terms of time” in ln. 1-4. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to have relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop and closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, and an incremental encoder and in terms of time, or have relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, or an incremental encoder or in terms of time. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, or an incremental encoder or in terms of time. The examiner recommends revising “and/or” to “and” or “or” to rectify the issue.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “acceleration of relative movement” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structure the relative movement is referring to. The specification describes relative movement of the workpiece on pg. 4. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the relative movement is referring to the relative movement of the workpiece.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a plurality of application units arranged in a regular and/or grid-like and/or matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid” in ln. 1-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to have a plurality of application units arranged in a regular and grid-like and matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid, or have a plurality of application units arranged in a regular or grid-like or matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that a plurality of application units arranged in a regular or grid-like or matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid. The examiner recommends revising “and/or” to “and” or “or” to rectify the issue.
It is also unclear if “preferably can be” is language that requires the plurality of application units is moved and moved linearly. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the plurality of application units is moved and moved linearly. The examiner recommends revising or omitting this limitation to rectify the issue.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “one or more application units, in particular a plurality of lines or rows of application units, can be moved, preferably can be rotated or pivoted, in particular during the application of fluid” in ln. 1-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “in particular”, “can be”, and “preferably can be” is language that requires a plurality of lines or rows of one or more application units to be moved, and whether the movement of the plurality of lines or rows of application units includes rotating or pivoting, during application of fluid. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that “in particular”, “can be”, and “preferably can be” is language that requires a plurality of lines or rows of application units to be moved, and rotated or pivoted, during application of fluid. The examiner recommends either revising or omitting this limitation to rectify the issue.
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, 5-6, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siegrist (EP 0994754 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Siegrist discloses a treatment system (1, Fig. 1) for treating workpieces, in particular for performing a fluid treatment on vehicle bodies (shown in Fig. 1, Pg. 2), the treatment system (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
an enclosure (external modular container surrounding treatment system 3, shown in Fig. 1, Pg. 4, 8) which surrounds a treatment chamber (3, shown in Fig. 1);
a conveying device (7, Fig. 1), by which at least one workpiece (2, Fig. 1) can be introduced into the treatment chamber and/or can be guided through the treatment chamber and/or can be discharged from the treatment chamber (3, car bodies 2 are transported through cleaning system 3 through conveyor belt 7, shown in Fig. 1, Pg. 2); and
an application device (11, 12, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, Figs. 3, 5-11) for applying fluid to the at least one workpiece (2, various fluids are applied to the car body shell 2 through nozzle rings 12 and pipe clamping elements 11, warm air nozzles 63, and robots 46, 47, 71, 70, shown in Figs. 3, 5-11, Pg. 6, 9-10).
Regarding claim 2, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, wherein the treatment includes a degreasing process and/or a rinsing process and/or a coating process (treatment can be spray and washing, Pg. 6).
With respect to claim 5, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, the application device (11, 12, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, Figs. 3, 5-11) has a plurality of coupled and/or synchronized application units (interpreting synchronized as to happen at the same time, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 16, Fig. 3) which are in particular coupled and/or synchronized with one another such that spray jets applied to the workpiece by the application units strike different surface regions of the workpiece at any time (nozzles 16 operate at the same time at different regions, shown in Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, total spray patterns on the workpiece (2, Fig. 1) can be produced by a plurality of application units (16, shown in Fig. 3) of the application device (11, 12, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, shown in Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 8, Siegrist 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, in particular can be displaced linearly, by the conveying device or a movement device (car bodies 2 move linearly along external cleaning system 3 through conveyor belt 7, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 9, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. Siegrist further discloses application units (16, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, Figs. 3, 5-11) are arranged so as to be distributed over a total length of the treatment chamber (total length of external cleaning system 3, shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the workpiece (2, Fig. 1) can be moved relative to the application units (16, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, Figs. 3, 5-11) by more than half a distance between two adjacent application units (16, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, external cleaning system 3 has different cleaning stages throughout the system allowing various fluids are applied to the car body shell 2 through nozzle rings 12 and pipe clamping elements 11, nozzles 16, warm air nozzles 63, and robots 46, 47, 71, 70, as the car bodies 2 travel along the cleaning system 3, shown in Fig. 1, Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, the application device (11, 12, 63, 46, 47, 70, 71, Figs. 3, 5-11) includes a plurality of application units (16, Fig. 3) which are arranged in a grid-like or matrix-like form, in particular on one or two opposite side walls of the treatment chamber (3, shown in Fig. 3).
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 Siegrist (EP 0994754 B1) in view of Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. However, Siegrist 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).
Siegrist 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 Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’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 Siegrist’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).
Claims 4, 7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegrist (EP 0994754 B1) in view of Belanger (US 20060157093 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1, wherein the application device (11, 12, Fig. 3) includes one or more application units (16, nozzles 16 are adjustable, Fig. 3, Pg. 6). However, Siegrist does not disclose one or more rotatable or rotating application units, by which a rotating spray pattern can be produced on the workpiece.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the application device (14, Fig. 1) includes one or more rotatable or rotating application units (60, 62, 70, spray manifolds 60, 62 rotate about pivot points 78, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0041), by which a rotating spray pattern can be produced on the workpiece (rotation of manifolds 60, 62 cause nozzles 70 to also rotate, to deliver fluid to a vehicle in a rotating pattern, shown in Figs. 1, 6A-6B, Paragraphs 0014, 0039-0040, 0044)
Siegrist 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 one or more rotatable or rotating application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’s application device to have one or more rotatable or rotating application units, by which a rotating spray pattern can be produced on the workpiece. There is a motivation to combine the one or more rotatable or rotating application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’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).
In regards to claim 7, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. Siegrist discloses the application device (11, 12, Fig. 3) includes a plurality of application units (16, Fig. 3) which can be moved (nozzles 16 are adjustable, Pg. 6). However, Siegrist does not disclose the application device includes a plurality of application units which can be moved, in particular can be rotated, together by a distributor device of the application device to supply the fluid to the application units.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the application device (14, Fig. 1) includes a plurality of application units (70, Fig. 1) which can be moved, in particular can be rotated, together by a distributor device (60, 62, Fig. 1) of the application device to supply the fluid to the application units (70, rotation of manifolds 60, 62 cause nozzles 70 to also rotate, to deliver fluid to a vehicle, shown in Figs. 1, 6A-6B, Paragraphs 0014, 0039-0040, 0044).
Siegrist 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 plurality of application units and the distributor device taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’s application device to include a plurality of application units which can be moved, in particular can be rotated, together by a distributor device of the application device to supply the fluid to the application units. There is a motivation to combine the plurality of application units and the distributor device taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’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).
Regarding claim 10, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. However, Siegrist does not explicitly disclose relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, and/or an incremental encoder and/or in terms of time, in particular with specification of a movement sequence.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor (160, Fig. 4), in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, and/or an incremental encoder and/or in terms of time, in particular with specification of a movement sequence (sensor assemblies 160 can be sonic, optic, or a combination of both to detect movement of the vehicle in the carriage assembly 14, Paragraph 0051).
Siegrist 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 Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’s system to have relative movement of the workpiece can be controlled in an open-loop and/or closed-loop manner by a proximity sensor, in particular a proximity sensor with a protection type IP69k, and/or an incremental encoder and/or in terms of time, in particular with specification of a movement sequence. There is a motivation to combine the proximity sensor taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’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).
Regarding claim 14, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. However, Siegrist does not disclose one or more application units, in particular a plurality of application units arranged in a regular and/or grid-like and/or matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising one or more application units (60, 62, 70, Fig. 1), in particular a plurality of application units arranged in a regular and/or grid-like and/or matrix-like form (shown in Fig. 1), can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid (shown in Figs. 6A-6D).
Siegrist 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 application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’s system to have one or more application units, in particular a plurality of application units arranged in a regular and/or grid-like and/or matrix-like form, can be moved, preferably can be moved linearly, during the application of fluid. There is a motivation to combine the application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’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).
With respect to claim 15, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 1. However, Siegrist does not explicitly disclose one or more application units, in particular a plurality of lines or rows of application units, can be moved, preferably can be rotated or pivoted, in particular during the application of fluid.
Belanger teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising one or more application units (60, 62, 70, Fig. 1), in particular a plurality of lines or rows of application units, can be moved, preferably can be rotated or pivoted, in particular during the application of fluid (rotation of manifolds 60, 62 cause nozzles 70 to also rotate, to deliver fluid to a vehicle, shown in Figs. 1, 6A-6B, Paragraphs 0014, 0039-0040, 0044).
Siegrist 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 one or more application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’s system, to allow Siegrist’s system to have one or more application units, in particular a plurality of lines or rows of application units, can be moved, preferably can be rotated or pivoted, in particular during the application of fluid. There is a motivation to combine the one or more application units taught in Belanger’s system to Siegrist’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 Siegrist (EP 0994754 B1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 20190374966 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Siegrist discloses the treatment system according to Claim 8. However, Siegrist does not disclose acceleration of relative movement can be adjusted, in particular in a range between 0.25 m/s2 and 2 m/s2.
Thompson teaches a treatment system (10, Fig. 1) comprising acceleration of relative movement can be adjusted, in particular in a range between 0.25 m/s2 and 2 m/s2 (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).
Siegrist 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, in particular in a range between 0.25 m/s2 and 2 m/s2, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so allows the system to have a threshold acceleration and determine an unexpected movement, which can cause unwanted spray (Thompson, Paragraph 0087).
Conclusion
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
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights