DETAILED ACTION
for
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A QUALITY PARAMETER OF
A REPRESENTATION OF A COATING COMPOSITION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 & 01/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 01/05/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The abstract using the phase “Disclosed herein are”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means in claim 12 (for example, “means for providing at least one modified or new representation of the coating composition”; “means for providing surface property data of at least one coating layer produced from the provided representation of the coating formulation”; and “means for determining at least one quality parameter of the provided modified or new representation of the coating composition”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundem et al. [herein after Kundem] (US 2021/0187526) “Submitted by applicant on IDS”.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kundem discloses a process for determining a quality parameter of a representation of a coating composition (see abstract), said method comprising the steps of: (i) providing a modified representation of a coating composition (¶0039, lines 1-6); (ii) preparing the coating composition from the provided modified or new representation (¶0039, lines 6-9); (iii) producing a coating layer on at least a part of a substrate by manually applying the coating composition prepared in step (¶0040, lines 1-9 & ¶0082 lines 1-6) (ii) with a spray gun (100) comprising a sensor unit (622), a processing unit (614) and optionally a signal unit to at least part of the substrate while acquiring sensor data with the sensor unit [622; (¶0083, lines 1-6)]; (iv) optionally providing feedback to a user via the signal unit during manual application of the coating composition based on the sensor data acquired in step (¶0085, lines 11-16) (iii); (v) optionally repeating steps (i) to (iii) or steps (i) to (iv) (¶0083 & ¶0084, lines 1-7) (vi) providing to a computer processor (614) via a communication interface at least a part of the sensor data acquired in step (¶0063, lines 6-9) (iii); (vii) providing to the computer processor(614) via the communication interface surface property data of at least one coating layer produced in step (¶0083) (iii); (viii) determining with the computer processor at least one quality parameter of at least one representation provided in step (¶0063, lines 1-9) (i) based on the sensor data provided in step (vi), and the surface property data provided in step (vii); (ix) providing via the communication interface the at least one quality parameter determined in step (viii) (¶0100, lines 1-10); and (x) providing the representation of the coating composition via the communication interface to at least one database if the quality of said representation is determined in step (viii) to be acceptable (¶0116, lines 1-12 ).
Regarding claim 2, Kundem further discloses the modified or new representation of the coating composition may include providing a modified or new mixing formula or a modified or new recipe (¶0032, lines 8-13).
Regarding claim 3, Kundem further discloses the sensor unit includes at least one sensor [622; (¶0042, lines 20-26)].
Regarding claim 4, Kundem further discloses the sensor being a paint flow rate sensors [620; (¶0083, lines 25-31)].
Regarding claim 5, Kundem further discloses the sensor data acquired in step (iii) is selected from the group consisting of data on the distance between the spray gun and the substrate (¶0083, lines 25-31), data on the orientation of the spray gun with respect to the substrate (¶0085, lines 1-6), data on the movement of the spray gun (¶0085, lines 7-14), data on the contour of the substrate (¶0085, lines 14-16), data on the pressure of the compressed air, data on the flow of the coating composition, temperature data, humidity data and combinations thereof (¶0083, lines 25-31).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kundem further discloses providing feedback to a user during manual application of the coating composition with the spray gun in step (iv) includes providing the sensor data acquired in step (¶0063, lines 1-3) (iii) via a communication interface to the processing unit of the spray gun, processing with the processing unit the provided sensor data to determine whether the provided data is within or outside at least one predefined value (¶0091, lines 1-8), and providing with the signal unit at least one signal to the user in response to the processed sensor data (¶0091, lines 8-17).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Kundem further discloses providing surface property data in step (vii) includes determining surface property data of at least one coating layer applied in step (¶0063, lines 1-9) (iii) and providing the determined surface property data to the computer processor via the communication interface (¶0083, lines 1-8).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kundem further discloses determining the quality of the provided modified representation of the coating composition in step (viii) includes providing at least one predefined application value (¶0071), and at least one predefined surface property value (¶0073, lines 12-20), via a communication interface to the computer processor and determining with the computer processor if the sensor data provided in step (vi) is within at least one predefined application value (¶0073, lines 22-29), and if the surface property data provided in step (vii) is within at least one predefined surface property value (¶0103, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Kundem further discloses the quality parameter is a classifier being indicative of the acceptability of the provided modified representation of the coating composition (¶0079, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Kundem further discloses the quality of the provided modified representation of the coating composition is acceptable if the sensor data provided in step (vi) is within at least one predefined application value and if the surface property data provided in step (¶0070, lines 1-6) (vii) is within at least one predefined surface property value (¶0071, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 11, Kundem further discloses analyzing with the computer processor sensor data provided in step (vi); and/or (xi) optionally providing recommendations via the communication interface if the sensor data provided in step (¶0084, lines 15-21) (vi) and/or the surface property data provided in step (vii) is outside of predefined value(s) (¶0085, lines 1-6); and/or (xii) generating a further representation if the sensor data provided (¶0084, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 12, Kundem discloses a system for determining a quality parameter of a representation of a coating composition, said system including: a) means for providing at least one modified representation of the coating composition (¶0079, lines 1-5); b) a spray gun for manually applying the coating composition to a substrate (¶0062, lines 37-41), the spray gun comprising a sensor unit (622) for acquiring sensor data during operation of the spray gun, a processing unit for processing the acquired sensor data and optionally a signal unit for providing at least one signal in response to the processed sensor data (¶0083, lines 1-6): c) at least one communication interface; d) means for providing surface property data of at least one coating layer produced from the provided representation of the coating formulation (¶0084, lines 15-21); and e) means for determining at least one quality parameter of the provided modified representation of the coating composition (¶0103, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, Kundem further discloses a system (100) having a modified or new representation of a coating composition (¶0080), and b) a quality parameter, wherein the quality parameter is determined according to the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Kundem further discloses database (¶0065, lines 1-4) having at least one modified representation of a coating composition (¶0086), wherein the modified or new representation of the coating composition is provided to the database according to the method of claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above).
Conclusion
In addition, Dattilo et al, discloses methods, systems, and computer readable-medium with instructions for receiving data and providing calculated adjustments to a paint application process can comprise receiving at the server a first operating parameter associated with a first paint processing machine at a first painting facility. The method can also comprise receiving at the server a first quality control measurement from an analysis of a finished first paint product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855