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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/594648 filed March 4, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-16 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 “a first and second point” as being on “a first portion of a linear path” and then directly after recites “a second portion of a linear path between a first point and a second point”, which is indefinite because it is not clear if these “first and second points” are meant to be the same two points, or if two sets of “first and second points” are provided, one for each “portion of the linear path”. The rest of the claim appears to suggest it is referring to a single set of “first and second points” on the overall path, so for the purposes of examination this interpretation will be used, however it remains unclear how each portion of the path can include these two distinct points. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “at least one sprayer” and then later “at least one sprayer operably coupled to the first linear traversal mechanism”, and as such it is unclear if this is referring to the same “at least one sprayer” or a different one. Later on, the claim recites the language “the at least one sprayer” which is therefore even more indefinite as it is not clear which “at least one sprayer” is being referred to. It seems likely that this is meant to only refer to one single “at least one sprayer”, so for the purposes of examination this interpretation will be used. Claims 9-16 depend from claim 8.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the computer controller is configured to cause the first.” which is clearly indefinite, as the claim recites no further limitations or features, and is also grammatically incomplete. It is likely a typo, and the claim was not finished being written, however there is no way to know what the claim originally intended to recite. For the purposes of examination, it will just be understood as requiring the above computer controller, and therefore not further limiting claim 8 in any way.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “configured to receive user one or more user inputs” which appears to be a typo that should instead read “configured to receive one or more user inputs”. Claim 10 recites “the at least a portion of the section of the surface” which appears to be a typo which should instead read “at least a portion of the section of the surface”. Claim 18 recites, “wherein causing the causing the at least one sprayer to…” which is appears to be a typo which should instead read “wherein causing the at least one sprayer to… “ 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 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 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrolijk (WO 01/34309, full document attached herein).
Regarding claim 1: Vrolijk discloses a spraying device (1) having a plurality of spray nozzles (3) configured to spray paint or other materials, multiple lifting mechanisms including a telescopic arm (9) and a guide means (18) both of which move the spray nozzles (3) along parts of a path from a first point to a second point, and a control system which ensures the nozzles follow the desired path at all times, which includes moving both the telescopic arm (9) and the nozzles (3) along the movement mechanism (11) of the guide means (18), sometimes simultaneously but always in cooperation with each other, such that the spray nozzles (3) spray the material during each stroke along the desired path (p.5 lines 3-12, p.8 line 24- p.9 line 36, figures 1-2 and 20).
Regarding claim 2: Vrolijk discloses that the two lifting mechanisms cooperate to ensure the nozzles (3) traverse the desired stroke path by, for example, automatically controlling the telescopic arm (9) to ensure the distance between the nozzles (3) and the surface (2) is constant as the nozzles (3) spray and move along the surface (2) (p. 9 lines 29-36) and teaches that the movement and placement of the nozzles (3) (which corresponds to speed) is determined to achieve a desired thickness (p. 11 line 29- p.12 line 36).
Regarding claim 5: Vrolijk discloses that the above nozzles (3) being provided on arms (34) which include rotating mechanisms allowing the control unit to rotate them during spraying (p. 10 line 26- p. 11 line 28, figure 9).
Regarding claim 6: Vrolijk discloses the above rotating mechanism for the nozzle (3) arms (34) which is part of the guide means (18), which can be considered the first lifting mechanism (p. 10 line 26- p. 11 line 28, figures 1-2, 9).
Regarding claim 7: Vrolijk teaches that the device (1) moves the nozzles (3) in strokes such that the second point is either vertically above or below the first point (see figures 1, 10, 15).
Regarding claim 8: Vrolijk discloses a spraying device (1) having a plurality of spray nozzles (3) configured to spray paint or other materials, multiple linear traversal mechanisms including a telescopic arm (9) and a guide means (18) both of which move the spray nozzles (3) along linear paths, the spray nozzles (3) being coupled to the guide means (18) by way of a movement mechanism (11), and a control system which can be considered a computer controller, which controls the nozzles (3) such that they apply the material to the desired surface (2) and ensures that nozzles follow the desired path at all times, which includes moving both the telescopic arm (9) and the nozzles (3) along the movement mechanism (11) of the guide means (18), sometimes simultaneously but always in cooperation with each other, such that the spray nozzles (3) spray the material during each stroke along the desired path (p.5 lines 3-12, p.8 line 24- p.9 line 36, figures 1-2 and 20).
Regarding claim 9: Vrolijk shows that the section of the surface (2) being treated is defined by the telescopic arm (9), guide means (18) and spray nozzles (3) on the guide means (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10: Vrolijk shows the section of the surface (2) being treated (i.e., figure 15) and discloses that the two lifting mechanisms are controlled to cooperatively ensure the nozzles (3) traverse the desired stroke path by in a number of different possible linear motions before, during and after paint is being applied to multiple portions of the section of the surface (2) being coated, such linear motions can be considered first, second and third motions (abstract, p.11 line 29- p.12 line 36, figures 1, 8-10, 12, 15).
Regarding claim 11: Vrolijk discloses that the two lifting mechanisms cooperate to ensure the nozzles (3) traverse the desired stroke path by, for example, automatically controlling the telescopic arm (9) to ensure the distance between the guide means (18)/nozzles (3) and the surface (2) is constant as the nozzles (3) spray and move along the surface (2) (p. 9 lines 29-36) which amounts to causing the telescopic arm (9) (second mechanism) to reposition the guide means (18) (first mechanism) on the linear path.
Regarding claim 12: Vrolijk discloses that the separate movements of the movement mechanism (11) of the guide means (18) and the telescoping arm (9) can happen simultaneously (p. 9 lines 29-36) which would be in parallel, or they can occur separately (p. 15 line 36- p. 16 line 13), and thus in series.
Regarding claim 13: Vrolijk discloses that the material can be paint, cleaner, or grit blasting material (p. 10 lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 14: Vrolijk discloses a control system as discussed above, which can be considered a computer controller (p. 5 lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 15: Vrolijk discloses that the device (1) includes a vehicle (6) having wheels (7) configured to adjust a position of the device (1) on a support surface such as rails (8) or a freestanding surface, where the vehicle (6) is caused to move to adjust the position of the device (1) so as to apply successive strokes next to each other (p. 8 lines 24-35, figures 1, 8, 10-12 and 17).
Regarding claim 16: Vrolijk discloses that the guide means (18) includes rails (24) and a belt (27) which can be considered both a lifting mechanism and a gantry, as well as spray arms (34) which are turrets, as well as various actuators, motors and vertical support frames (p.9 line 37- p.10 line 40, figures 2-4), and the telescopic arm (9) can be a boom which is a lifting mechanism having a motor/actuator (p. 17 19-40, figures 1, 12 and 17).
Regarding claim 17: Vrolijk discloses a spraying device (1) having a plurality of spray nozzles (3) configured to spray paint or other materials, multiple linear traversal mechanisms including a guide means (18) that causes the spray nozzles (3) to traverse a first path and a telescopic arm (9) which moves the guide means (18) along a second linear path, and a control system which can be considered a computer controller, which controls the nozzles (3) such that they apply the material to the desired surface (2) and ensures that nozzles follow the desired path at all times, which includes moving both the telescopic arm (9) and the nozzles (3) along the movement mechanism (11) of the guide means (18), sometimes simultaneously but always in cooperation with each other, such that the spray nozzles (3) spray the material during each stroke along the desired path (p.5 lines 3-12, p.8 line 24- p.9 line 36, figures 1-2 and 20).
Regarding claim 18: Vrolijk discloses that part of the process includes interrupting the supply of material to the spray nozzles (3) such that spraying is deactivated (p. 11 lines 1-28).
Regarding claim 19: Vrolijk discloses that the material can be paint, cleaner, or grit blasting material (p. 10 lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 20: Vrolijk discloses that the guide means (18) includes rails (24) and a belt (27) which can be considered both a lifting mechanism and a gantry, as well as spray arms (34) which are turrets, as well as various actuators, motors and vertical support frames (p.9 line 37- p.10 line 40, figures 2-4), and the telescopic arm (9) can be a boom which is a lifting mechanism having a motor/actuator (p. 17 19-40, figures 1, 12 and 17).
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.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrolijk as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-20 above, and further in view of Hoppel (US 2013/0122186).
Regarding claim 3: Vrolijk teaches the control system as discussed above which performs a number of functions based on desired coating processes which implies user input, but fails to explicitly disclose that the system receives user inputs and provides commands to the various parts based on these inputs. However, Hoppel discloses a similar painting apparatus (1) having a control device (30) which includes operator input devices (31) which allows the operator to add inputs which program the computer to set the operational parameters, i.e. commands, which include commands relating to driving multiple linear drive systems as well as material flow to coating applicators (60) (pars. 24, 37-38, figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use input devices like those of Hoppel for the control system of Vrolijk because Hoppel teaches that this is functionally equivalent to allowing fully automatic control (par. 60) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), because using a known element for a known purpose is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and because trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e., operator control vs fully automated control) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 4: Vrolijk and Hoppel disclose the above combination in which the user inputs program the parameters of the apparatus to perform commands relating to driving various parts of the apparatus and applying the coating from the applicator (Hoppel pars. 37-38).
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,090,674. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘674 patent has a scope sufficient to read on the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,124,359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘359 patent has a scope sufficient to read on the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,235,344. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4 of the ‘344 patent have a scope sufficient to read on the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,019. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘019 patent has a scope sufficient to read on the claims of the instant Application.
Claims 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,090,674, 10,124,359, 11,235,344 and 11,919,019 in view of Hoppel. Neither ‘674, ‘359, ‘344 nor ‘019 explicitly claim anything involving user inputs, however Hoppel discloses a similar painting apparatus (1) having a control device (30) which includes operator input devices (31) which allows the operator to add inputs which program the computer to set the operational parameters, i.e. commands, which include commands relating to driving multiple linear drive systems as well as material flow to coating applicators (60) (pars. 24, 37-38, figure 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use input devices like those of Hoppel for the control systems of ‘674, ‘359, ‘344 and/or ‘019 because Hoppel teaches that this is functionally equivalent to allowing fully automatic control (par. 60) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), because using a known element for a known purpose is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143), and because trying from a finite number of solutions (i.e., operator control vs fully automated control) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,124,359, 11,235,344 and 11,919,019 in view of Vrolijk. ‘359, ‘344 and ‘019 do not explicitly claim a rotational motion mechanism which adjusts an angle of the spraying mechanism. However, Vrolijk discloses a similar spray device in which the spray nozzles (3) are provided on arms (34) which include rotating mechanisms allowing the control unit to rotate them during spraying (p. 10 line 26- p. 11 line 28, figure 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rotating arms like those of Vrolijk for the apparatuses of ‘359, ‘344 and ‘019 because Vrolijk teaches that this allows for enhanced coverage as the nozzles pivot while moving (p. 10 line 26- p. 11 line 28, figure 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lipinski et al. (US 2016/0121486) discloses a similar painting robot having a telescoping arm with multiple joints as well as a movable head at the top of the arm (see figure 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717 4/18/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights