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 .
DETAILED ACTION
It is noted that claim 7 relates to the system outside of the coating proses. As such claim 7 is separate and distinct form the other claims. Claim 7 has been examined, and requires art outside of the scope of the other claims. Any amendments relating to claim 7 that further the gap between the inventive concepts of the other claims and claim 7 may result in a restriction.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims should not be restricted as the claims overlap. The same logic applied to claim 7 as recited above apply to the restricted claims.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of co pending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
Claims 1-20 of US 20240278426 mapped to claims 1-8 of the instant application as the claims of the instant application require a first and second nozzle and a first and second laser, whereas the co pending application requires at least one nozzle and at least on laser. One of ordinary would understand at least one to be a first and a second.
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
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 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.
(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 1-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shashou US 20210120935 teaches.
1. A system for applying one or more coatings onto a surface of a substrate comprising:
a. a pumping and dispensing system for supplying a coating; 897; a pump suitable for enamel, top coat, or basecoat, including one or more of a plastic or glass vial 621 filled with the fluid to be dispensed
b. at least a first robotic unit associated with the pumping and dispensing system, 73; mechanism may comprise a parallel robot (e.g., delta robot, Stewart platform, etc.).
the first robotic unit including a first applicator having at least a first nozzle 652 First nozzle and a second applicator having at least a second nozzle 654 second nozzle for applying at least a first coating and at least a second coating for the enamel/polish application onto the surface of the substrate Fig. 16 onto nail.
said first robotic unit being movable with respect to the surface of the substrate; 853 and Fig.16 342.
c. at least a first laser system and at least a second laser system mounted on the first robotic unit for observing a shape of the substrate and for monitoring application of at least the first coating and the second coating onto the surface of the substrate; and 217-219; The image analysis may comprise an analysis of an original projected pattern of structured light in an image to infer three-dimensional information about the user's one or more nails. The light source may comprise a projector, one or more [first and second] light-emitting diodes emitting light through a patterned sheet or mask and/or reflecting the light, or a laser [first and second] or other focused light source, which may sweeps across one or more surfaces of the user's one or more nails.
d. a control unit configured for cooperating with the first laser system and the second laser system for real-time modification of movement of the first robotic unit during the application of the coating onto the substrate based on the observed shape of the substrate and for controlling the first applicator and the second applicator to control application of the first and second coating onto the substrate.37; a computer or processor along with associated memory and peripheral devices to control the process of automatically providing the manicure or portions thereof; and/or a program that detects nails or fingers or toes and controls the operation of the apparatus in providing the manicure or portions thereof.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the pumping and dispensing system is configured for supplying two different coating materials to the first applicator and the second applicator so that two different coatings are applied onto the surface of the substrate.897; enamel/polish application system [enamel is a hardener while polish is an abrasive] Also 950 acetone/ nail polish
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first and second laser systems are configured for observing an amount and/or thickness of coating applied to the surface of the substrate and 111; use of a detection system in conjunction with further processing to estimate the amount or location of any remaining enamel. 218-219; The vision system may further comprise one or more laser, which may sweep across one or more surfaces of the nail. Also; 211 photometric stereo techniques [stereo detects depth rang] 214, image analysis may comprise generating a three-dimensional representation or model [3d also dept and measurement form model]
wherein the control unit is configured for real-time modification of the amount of coating applied to the surface of the substrate.112; The method may comprise the use of a detection system, possibly in conjunction with further processing, to direct operation of a removal system.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein at least the first laser system functions as a locator sensor for the substrate by generating a search trajectory and 783; the vision system 200 may capture one or a series of images of the user's hand, with some or all images each illuminated by a different source or sources of [laser] light; photometric stereo techniques may then be used to estimate a normal [search] map (i.e., map of the unit normal vectors [trajectory] for each small region of the nail plate); 838; 875
comparing the search trajectory against 783; a combination of algorithms may be used to determine the general location of the user's nails a previously learned master pattern.1646; the trajectories that can be implemented according to various embodiments of a nail care system 100 (e.g., stored in memory and put into action by a mechanism or element such as a robotic arm of the apparatus; 838
5. The system of claim 4, wherein at least the first laser system includes a first laser sensor configured for generating a real-time three-dimensional image of a coating route for the first robotic applicator and 1981; system 100 may perform methods for mapping 2D patterns (e.g., logos or images) onto the 3D nail surface. [3d surfaced from laser mapping]; 835; distance sensors (e.g., geometric distance sensors or laser range finders) to assist in determining the location of nails FN/TN or fingers F/T.
to function as an inspection system that measures the quantity, position, width, and thickness of the coating applied to the substrate.150; robotically applying nail polish to the user's one or more nails or portions thereof may comprise one or more of the following operations: moving one or more applicators under computer control on or above the surface of the nail while dispensing a material (e.g., fluid or powder); controlling the flow of a material (e.g., nail polish remover, nail polish basecoat, nail polish topcoat, and/or nail polish color coat) from one or more reservoirs through one or more dispensers to one or more applicators; and/or using a visual system to measure and confirm proper coverage of nail polish. Also 63; compute nail or finger or toe characteristics (e.g., boundaries, shape, normal map, height map, thickness, color, albedo, acoustic reflectivity, surface texture, etc.).
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured for monitoring the pumping and dispensing system to determine when at least the first coating and the second coating require replenishment and 137; The reservoir may further comprise a sensor that indicates the volume of enamel remaining, if any.
the control unit is configured for real-time modification of a speed at which the coating is dispensed from the first nozzle and/or the second nozzle.143; The pump may further comprise a positive displacement design that dispenses or draws in a controlled volume of fluid or gas; and/or sensors that indicate the rate of motion of fluid through the pump; and/or sensors that indicate the speed of the pump (which may be used to deduce the rate of motion of fluid through the pump).899;
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a flat or curved glass substrate and 552; end view of the basic nozzle tip for the enamel/polish application system orthogonally incident with a curved nail. [nail and glass have identical properties when applying coating; i.e. selecting, replacing a nail with glass will have zero effect]
at least the first robotic applicator is configured for applying a coating comprising at least one of a primer, a chemical solvent, and an adhesive.553; for the enamel[adhesive]/polish application system
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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shashou as applied to claim above, and further in view of Sun US 20220289501.
7. Shashou teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 1,
But does not teach
including a conveyor for transporting the substrate and
a series of security scanners located adjacent to the conveyor,
wherein a detection of an abnormality with the substrate
or
a detection of a foreign object within a predetermined safe zone by one or more of the security scanners
sends a signal to the control unit to control the movement of the conveyor
and/or
at least the first robotic applicator.
However, Sun teaches
including a conveyor for transporting the substrate and Fig. 2A 208
a series of security scanners located adjacent to the conveyor, Fig.2A 214 and 216
wherein a detection of an abnormality with the substrate 66; use the sensor data to detect a clog or abnormality [substrate is outer surface]
or
a detection of a foreign object within a predetermined safe zone by one or more of the security scanners
sends a signal to the control unit to control the movement of the conveyor 79; control computer 212 sends an alert to obtain assistance from a human operator via teleoperation, e.g., by human operator 220 using teleoperation device 218. an on demand teleoperation device 218 usable by a human worker 220 to operate one or more of robotic arm 202, end effector 204, and conveyor 208 by teleoperation.
and/or
at least the first robotic applicator. 79; a human worker 220 to operate one or more of robotic arm 202, end effector 204, and conveyor 208 by teleoperation.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine and implement a plan to autonomously operate a robotic structure to pick one or more items from the workspace and place each item singly in a corresponding location in a singulation conveyance structure, such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664