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 .
The amendment of December 18, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 9 and 18-20 are canceled, and claims 1-8, 10-17 and new claims 21-24 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that non-elected claims 18-20 have been canceled by the amendment of December 18, 2025.
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: “automated vision system” in claims 1, 16 and 21.
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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 13 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 has been amended to provide specifically “masking of the sub-region is performed after the operation of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material”. However, this not supported by the application as filed, where in original claim 12 and the specification at 0007, it was provided that masking the sub-region was not provided before step (e). While this provided not masking before the application of the second paint, with the not performing masking before step (e), this does not provide that there is support for specifically providing masking any time after the operation of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material, where the original language can just mean that what is taught is that no masking was provided before step (e) (operating the paint applicator to eject and apply the second paint material). Therefore, the claim contains new matter.
Claims 13 and 24 now provide specifically “surface of the first paint coating is modified after the operating the paint applicator to eject the second paint material”. However, this not supported by the application as filed, where in original claim 13 and the specification at 0007, it was provided that a surface of the first paint coating is not modified before step (e). While this provided not modifying before the application of the second paint, with the not performing modifying before step (e), this does not provide that there is support for specifically modifying any time after the operation of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material, where the original language can just mean that what is taught is that no modifying was provided before step (e). Therefore, the claims contain new matter.
Furthermore, for claim 21, it generally has modifying a surface of at least a portion of each subregion, which can be before and after applying the second coating, where in the disclosure as filed and note original claim 8, the modifying is done before the application of the second paint material. Therefore, the claim is broader than what was originally disclosed, and the claim contains new matter.
The dependent claims rejected also do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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.
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 1-2, 4-11, 14-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al (US 2020/0094282) in view of Japan 61-287466 (hereinafter ‘466), Ellwood et al (US 2019/0232322), WO 2008/092800 (hereinafter ‘800, used as provided with the IDS of March 26, 2024) and Selby (US 2020/0046918) EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams et al (US 10323932).
Claim 1: Fritz teaches that it is known to desire to coat/paint a vehicle component, where a first paint material is applied to a target region of the vehicle component to product a first paint coating across the target region (note figure 5, 0002, 0021, 0024-0031). Fritz describes using multiple/plurality of nozzles 7 and spray guns/nozzle applicators 2 to apply the coating, where during the painting, a subset of the nozzles, which is less than all of the nozzles of the plurality of nozzles, can be controlled to eject paint (while the other nozzles do not eject paint) in order to coat a desired area (target region), where a controller can be provided to control the system (note 0059-0063, 0024-0029, 0036-0038, 0082). Fritz also teaches that an automated vision system can be present (note cameras to take images, sent to an image evaluation unit to control the painting robots) (note 0081-0082, figure 5).
(A) Fritz does not teach specifically the scanning with an automated vision system (AVS) the target region to detect, using the AVS, one or more imperfections in the first painting coating of the target region, with each imperfection being an area in the target region lacking full thickness of application of the paint material, and based on the detected one or more imperfections, of mapping via a controller, one or more subregions of the first paint coating, each sub-region being associated with a corresponding imperfection, where the subregion being less than an entirety of the target region, and based on the one or more subregions, identifying, via the controller, a subset of nozzles of a paint applicator, where the subset corresponds to one or more subregions associated with the imperfections, and operating the paint applicator to eject a second paint material from the subset of nozzles and not from other nozzles to apply the second paint material to the one or more subregions,
However, ‘466 describes an unmanned (automatic coating line) system for painting an object, where it is noted that when providing automatic painting it is difficult to uniformly form a coating film over the entire surface of a three dimensional article to be coated, and it is unavoidable that spots will occur and repair needed (note page 1, translation). ‘466 describes providing a first spray coating/painting with a spray gun, and then scanning with a camera (as object moved in front of camera, camera will scan) to determine where the painting is thin (that is the “subregion” where imperfections of areas lacking a full thickness of application are in the target painted region), where the scanned images are directed to control device (controller) (where this is considered to meet the requirements of an automated vision system as claimed under 35 USC 112(f) or at least be substantially equivalent), where the controller maps the subregions where the imperfections are (since has to determine where the spraying needed), which would be based on detected imperfections, which would be less than an entirety of the target region, and the controller tells the paint injection control device 18 to control the spraying of second coating/painting material from a second spray gun to only coat in the thin subregions where further coating needed, for example, where the repair coating is automatically performed, to provide the desired uniform coating (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz to further provide a step b) scanning, with an automated vision system, the target region, using the AVS to detect one or more imperfections in the first painting coating, with each imperfection being an area in the target region lacking full thickness of application of the paint material, based on the detected imperfections, mapping via a controller, one or more subregions of the first paint coating, each sub-region being associated with a corresponding imperfection, where the subregion being less than an entirety of the target region, based on the subregions, determining, via the controller, a subset of nozzles of a paint applicator, where the subset corresponds to one or more subregions associated with imperfections, and operating the paint applicator to eject a second paint material from the subset of nozzles and not from other nozzles to apply the second paint material to the one or more subregions as suggested by ‘466 with an expectation of providing a desirable more uniform coating, since Fritz teaches spray coating/painting a target region of a vehicle component with a first paint coating across the target region using multiple nozzles, where a subset of the nozzles can be used to coat specific areas, where as a vehicle component the substrate would be three dimensional (note figure 5), and ‘466 indicates that when providing automated paint spay coating of three dimensional objects, the first coating will conventionally have imperfection areas where the coating is too thin, and it is conventional to scan the target region being coated with an automated vision system (with camera and controller) to detect imperfections that would each be in an area of the target region lacking a full thickness of the first paint material, and mapping, based on the detected imperfections, with a controller subregions being associated with the corresponding imperfection, where the subregions would be less than an entirety of the first coating target region, and controlling a second paint material application to coat only the subregions where more paint coating needed to give a uniform coating, and since Fritz indicates using specific subsets of nozzles (less than the total number of nozzles) to coat specific areas, it would be suggested that when applying the second coat in the system of Fritz to also use the same coating nozzles as the desired system for applying the paint and for the controller to identify and to only use specific subsets of nozzles (less than the total number of nozzles) to coat the specific subregions where more coating needed.
Optionally further using Adams, as to specifically desiring to use a repair system as in ‘466 when coating vehicle components, Adams teaches that it is well known to inspect vehicle body components after coating/painting to determine thicknesses of applied paints (note column 1, lines 10-15, column 3, lines 25-50), where the thicknesses of paint can be mapped to a set of local coordinates (subregions) of thickness, including indicating areas of paint thickness not in a tolerable (tolerance) range (note column 7,lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz to use the repair processing of ‘466 as discussed above as further suggested by Adams, which specifically teaches that it would be desired to inspect coated vehicle components to determine and map out where paint thickness are not in a desired thickness, and therefore, a repair processing as desired by ‘466 to correct for paint being too thin in areas would also be desirable when coating vehicle components.
(B) Further as to the specific nozzle features of providing the nozzles to have a nozzle plate that defines an aperture and partially defines a reservoir configured to hold the second paint material and a piezoelectric actuator configured to vibrate the second paint material in the reservoir to eject the second paint material from the aperture, as noted above Fritz indicates using nozzle applicators with multiple nozzles to apply the coating.
Ellwood further describes nozzles applicators for applying paint to vehicle components (note figure 1, 0007, 0025). The nozzle applicators (array) have multiple nozzles (note micro-applicators with apertures) with a nozzle plate that defines an aperture and partially defines a reservoir configured to hold paint material and a piezoelectric actuator configured to vibrate the paint material in the reservoir to eject the paint material from the aperture (note figures 2A, 2B, 0028-0031, 0026). Ellwood further teaches that a subset of the nozzles can be switched on and off, giving a different pattern width of material, for example (note 0007, 0036, 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘446, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to use nozzles where the nozzles to have a nozzle plate that defines an aperture and partially defines a reservoir configured to hold the second paint material and a piezoelectric actuator configured to vibrate the second paint material in the reservoir to eject the second paint material from the aperture as suggested by Ellwood with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Fritz indicates using multiple nozzles where only a subset of nozzles can be used, and Ellwood describes using a nozzles system with multiple nozzles, where the nozzles to have a nozzle plate that defines an aperture and partially defines a reservoir configured to hold the second paint material and a piezoelectric actuator configured to vibrate the second paint material in the reservoir to eject the second paint material from the aperture for coating vehicle components and where such nozzles can have subsets turned on and off, giving a multiple nozzle system for use for painting vehicle components that can also use only a subset of the nozzles.
(C) Further as to adjusting a number of pulses of a waveform provided to the actuators for one or more nozzles associated with an outer edge of the one or more subregions to control a vibration of the second paint material in the reservoir to control a transition of the second paint material between the one or more subregions and the first paint coating,
‘800 describes to provide automated repair for damaged coatings for vehicle bodies (note pages 1-3), where the damage can be in the form of a dent (note page 10, which would give an area with thinner coating). The repair coating can be applied by a spray gun in an automatic process (note page 11). It is indicated to determine visual properties desired and to select a color imparting coating composition to provide the desired visual properties and to apply the selected composition (note claim 1), and thus a same or different color can be provided. It is also indicated that a clear coat can be applied (note claim 3), which can be a different color as well. ‘800 indicates to control a transition of the repair/second paint coating between the subregion where repair coating/second paint applied and the first paint coating, indicating to have a fade out effect at the boarder of the damaged and undamaged area when providing the repair, including adjusting the thickness applied at an outer edge of the subregions for the fade out (note page 21, with the decreasing thickness towards the border/edge).
Selby describes how electronic droplet generators can be used for painting (note 0004), and when using an actuator to provide droplets, the frequency (which would be of the waveform) and pulses of the actuator can be adjusted to adjust the flow rate (and so thickness by the amount applied per time) where the flow rate lowers (so lower thickness) with lower pulses or flow rate (note 0053-0055). Selby describes how over a time, the number of pulses of the waveform can be adjusted to adjust the flow rate, for example, where it is described how pulsing a spray with turning the valve on and off affects the flow rate (generally linearly proportional to on time, so flow rate decreases as on time decreases) (note 0055), and it is described how this pulsing effect can occur with frequency (applying the frequency in in bursts with gaps, so pulsing with on/off periods) (note 0056-0057), and gives examples where the pulse modulation of the waveform can occur with more or less on and off periods, which linearly affects the delivery rate (note figures 4-5, 0066, 0067), and as shown in figures 4-5, there would be a changing number of pulses in the waveform over a period of time. The waveform/frequency would be provided to the actuator (note 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘446 and Ellwood, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to control a transition of the second paint in the subregion to the first paint coating, such that the second paint coating thins at the outer edges of the subregion(s) to have a fade out effect at the border of the subregion(s) and the first paint so there is a desirable meet up of the paints as suggested by ‘800, since Fritz in view of ‘446 and Ellwood, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams would indicate to provide a repair second coat in subregions with defects, and as indicated by ‘800 these regions would have borders that match up with the non-damaged first paint, and that it is desirable to match the edge/border regions of the paint by providing a transition where the second paint coating thins at the outer edges of the subregions(s) to have a fade out effect matching up the first painting. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘446, Ellwood and ‘800, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to adjust a number of pulses of a waveform provided to the piezoelectric actuators for the one or more nozzles associated with an outer edge of the one or more subregions to control a vibration of the second paint material in the reservoir to control the transition of the second paint material between the one or more subregions and the first paint coating, as suggested by Selby with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, where Ellwood suggests using the piezoelectric actuators for controlling the paint material provided to the nozzles, ‘800 suggests adjusting the thickness out the outer edge (to be thinner) of the subregions, and Selby would suggest that the operation of the actuators to get thinner coatings by adjusting the number of pulses of a waveform/frequency provided to the actuators over time, for example, to adjust the flow rate of material, allowing for a lesser flow rate, for example, to give a thinner coating, for the nozzles associated with an outer edge of the subregion, which here would be for the application of the second material, where as indicated by Selby, the frequency/waveform is used to excite/vibrate the actuator that vibrates the membrane for the atomizing head (note 0045), and as indicated by Ellwood, for the second paint the actuators act to vibrate the second paint material in reservoir to eject the material from the actuators.
Claim 2: As to using the paint applicator system to apply both the first coating and the second coating, and where when applying the first coating, more nozzles than the subset of nozzles are used, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when using the process of Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the same nozzles would be understood to be able to apply both the first and second coating material (where the second coating material can even be the same composition as the first coating material) and the number of nozzles in use can be adjusted, and it would be suggested that less nozzles would be used in the second coating, because only areas with imperfections are coated, while for the first coating material, the entire target region has to be painted.
Claim 4: As to the second paint having a different color than the first paint, ‘800 provides that it is indicated to determine visual properties desired and to select a color imparting coating composition to provide the desired visual properties and to apply the selected composition (note claim 1), and thus a same or different color can be provided. It is also indicated that a clear coat can be applied (note claim 3), which can be a different color as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘446, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to use a same or different color composition as the second paint as compared to the first paint as suggested by ‘800 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as ‘446 would indicate to provide a second paint, and ‘800 would further indicate providing second paints to repair thinner coating areas on a painted vehicle, where the second paints would be acceptably either the same or different from the first paint.
Claim 5: As to each subregion having an area including the imperfection and a perimeter surrounding the imperfection, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when using the process of Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER OR further in view of Adams, where Fritz notes the desire to not have undesired overlapping of too thick coatings, but also not having gaps between adjacent coating paths (which would give too thin coatings between paths) but rather to have small positioning tolerance between paths (note 0050), which when providing the second coating to build up uniformity would indicating providing a small positioning tolerance (perimeter) outside the thin area to be filled to make sure of full coverage. Furthermore, when using ‘800 as discussed above, it would further have been obvious to have as the subregion the imperfection and a perimeter surrounding is, as ‘800 suggests having fade out effect at the border of the damaged and undamaged area when providing the repair (note page 21), and thus it would be suggested to provide the coating into a border region as well to provide the fade out effect.
Claim 6: to provide the first paint coating is cured after the operating the paint applicator to eject the second paint material would be suggested by ‘466, which indicates the repair processing (which would include ejecting/applying the second paint material) can be provided to an uncured coating so that uncured coatings are coated one on another (note page 2, translation).
Claim 7: It would further be suggested that the ejecting the second paint material can be acceptably done after the first paint is cured, since in ‘800 the process can also be used to repair damage during service life of original factory applied paint color (note page 2).
Claim 8: it would further be suggested that that a surface of the subregion can be modified before the operation of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material, where for example, in ‘800 a filler composition can be applied before the color (paint) coating (note claims 1, 2).
Claim 10: furthermore ‘800 would suggest adjusting the thickness applied at an outer edge of the subregions for the fade out (note page 21, with the decreasing thickness towards the border).
Claim 11: as to adjusting the outer edge by decreasing a frequency of the waveform or number of pulses of the waveform provided to the piezoelectric actuators of the nozzles associated with an outer edge of the subregion, as discussed for claim 1 above it would be suggest to make the edges of the subregion/second paint coating thinner, and Shelby would indicate that decreasing pulses of the waveform provided to the actuators of the nozzles would decrease the flow rate, giving less coating applied, and therefore a thinner coating.
Claim 14: Similarly when providing the process as for claims 1 and 11 above, adjustment of the waveform would also be made based on the size of the imperfection, because the thickness needed would be based on the where the coating needed to be applied.
Claim 15: Similarly when providing the process as for claim 1 and 11 above, there would also be an area where it is suggested to increase the frequency/pulses of the waveform, which would give a thicker coating (noting the discussion for claims 1, 10, 11 above), as if the coating is thinner at the edges, it would be thicker in the central area.
Claim 16: The features of this claim would be suggested as discussed for claims 1 and 2 above, where the same system would be suggested for providing the first paint coating, and the second paint coating, where the paint coating can be the same composition as the first coating, and it would be suggested to use the same composition so a “uniform coating” of the same composition is provided over the entire area to be coated, since the purpose of the second coating is to fill in areas of the original coating that were too thin and thus provide a uniform coating, so the “first paint material” would be acceptably used for the second coating (of the process of claim 1).
Claim 17: when using ‘800 as discussed above (and for claim 17, claim 16 as well) above, it would further be suggested that an edge definition of the subset of the nozzles can be adjusted to control a transition between the subregions and first paint coating, since ‘800 suggests having fade out effect at the border of the damaged and undamaged area when providing the repair (note page 21), and thus it would be suggested to provide the coating into a border region as well to provide the fade out effect, and thus one would adjust the edge definition to use to provide this.
Claim 21: The features of this claim would be suggested as discussed for claim 1, where all features are the same for claim 1, except specifically the addition of “modifying a surface of at least a portion of each subregion”, however, such modification would be suggested by ‘800, where it would further be suggested that that a surface of the subregion can be modified before the operation of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material, where for example, in ‘800 a filler composition can be applied before the color (paint) coating (note claims 1, 2).
Claim 22: when using ‘800 as discussed above (and for claim 21 as well) above, it would further be suggested that an edge definition of the subset of the nozzles can be adjusted to control a transition between the subregions and first paint coating, since ‘800 suggests having fade out effect at the border of the damaged and undamaged area when providing the repair (note page 21), and thus it would be suggested to provide the coating into a border region as well to provide the fade out effect, and thus one would adjust the edge definition to use to provide this.
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams as applied to claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-17 and 21-22 above, and further in view of CN 218742767U (hereinafter ‘767).
Claims 3, 23: As to mounting a camera of the vision system on the paint applicator and the scanning of the target region occurs while the first paint coating is applied, Fritz notes how sensors can be applied to the paint applicators for use during coating(note figure 6, 0084).
‘767 providing paint spraying from a spray gun/paint applicator, where it is indicates that a vision system (camera 2) can be mounted to a spray gun 1, where the camera can be used to detect spraying thickness while spraying (note figure 1, page 3, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to use a camera of the vision system mounted on the paint applicator such that scanning of the target region occurs while the first paint coating is applied as suggested by ‘767 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Fritz notes how sensors can be applied to paint applicators for use during coating, ‘466 is using a vision system with a camera for paint thickness detecting, and ‘767 notes that a camera for paint thickness detecting can also be mounted to a paint applicator/spray gun such that thickness can be determined during spraying , suggesting providing the scanning during spraying for more efficient processing.
Claims 12, 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams as applied to claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-17 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Schoech (US 2757608).
Claims 12, 13, 24: As to further masking the subregion performed after the operating of the paint applicator to eject the second paint material (claim 12), and modifying the first paint coating surface after the operating the paint applicator to eject the second paint material (claims 13, 24).
Schoech describes providing a post manufacture treatment on vehicle bodies to provide a further application of lettering or other indica on vehicle bodies, where the treatment would apply a mask to the surface of the vehicle body, where portions are exposed to be painted, and then painting the exposed areas and removing the mask after painting (note column 1, lines 10-30, column 2, lines 25-40, figures 3, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fritz in view of ‘466, Ellwood, ‘800 and Selby, EITHER alone OR further in view of Adams to further perform a further modification/masking on the first and second coated painted vehicle body as suggested by Schoech with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Fritz is providing an overall vehicle body painting (note figure 5), and Schoech indicates how after manufacture, there is a desire to further modify the appearance of vehicle bodies by providing lettering or other indica, which would include applying mask to the body, further painting, and removing the mask. As to the mask also acting to mask areas of the subregion and the modification of the first paint coating, the masking and modifying on Schoech would be to provide the lettering/indica in the desired areas, and based on where the previous first coating and subregions provided, the mask would also predictably and acceptably mask a subregion and the surface of the first coating would be predictably and acceptably modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new art to Schoech and the new 35 USC 112 rejections.
(B) As to the Interview Summary, the Examiner notes that as discussed in the Interview Summary with regard to proposed claim 21, the claim was not understood to overcome the current art used.
(C) As to the Claim Interpretation, applicant’s attorney argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the automated vision system provides sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and is not a generic placeholder not preceded by a structural modifier. However, the Examiner disagrees with this position. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, there is no showing of understanding of what would be meant by the term, and what structure would be provided, and therefore the Examiner’s position remains.
(D) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that Selby would not provide the adjusting a number of pulses of a waveform provided to piezoelectric actuators to control vibration of the second paint material in a reservoir as claimed, and the time modulation of Selby is also not adjusting pulses as claimed, and is silent as to adjusting pulses of a waveform.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. Ellwood provides the specific use of the piezoelectric actuators to vibrate the paint material in the reservoir. Selby indicates how to provide vibrations to actuators, including with pulsing of the waveform as discussed in the rejection above. At 0056, discussion is made of providing the frequency/waveform in bursts/pulses with gaps of no/reduced signal in between (that is, would pulse the frequency on/off, for example), so like the pulsing in 0055, where more off time, so fewer pulses, gives lower flow rate. Note also the discussion in Selby of figures 4, 5 at 0066-0067 which describes more pulses per time or less pulses per time of a waveform/frequency would control flow rate of the spray. Thus, Selby would suggest adjusting the number of pulses of a waveform to the actuators of the nozzle, which would control vibration and the amount of material applied per time (flow rate), which would control how much applied relative to other areas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights