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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 6/8/2026 for application 18651800. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “a the remaining filter life” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - a remaining filter life - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a filter diagnostic system, implemented by one or more processors, configured to: … generate a filter status… and generate an output” (claim 1), “sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal” (claim 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the recitation “sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal” 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification discloses filter identifying logic (220) which identifies paint filter 218 by receiving sensor signals that indicate model and/or serial number (para. [0037]). Applicant’s specification separately discloses sensor signal receiving logic (224) which receives sensor signals from one or more operational state sensors 226 that detect an operational state of the airless paint spraying system (para. [0038]). The sensor signal receiving logic was not disclosed by Applicant as being configured, as claimed, to receive a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the limitation “sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification discloses filter identifying logic (220) which identifies paint filter 218 by receiving sensor signals that indicate model and/or serial number (para. [0037]). Applicant’s specification separately discloses sensor signal receiving logic (224) which receives sensor signals from one or more operational state sensors 226 that detect an operational state of the airless paint spraying system (para. [0038]). The sensor signal receiving logic was not disclosed by Applicant as being configured, as claimed, to receive a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter. Thus, Applicant has not disclosed the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further regarding Dependent Claim 7, the recitation “sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the sensor signal receiving logic disclosed by Applicant is required in addition to the filter identifying logic disclosed by Applicant. The instant claim separates two functions (“configured to receive” and “configured to identify”) which are disclosed by Applicant as part of the filter identifying logic (at para. [0037]) such that one function (“configured to receive”) is performed by a separate system (the “sensor signal receiving logic”) from the system disclosed by Applicant as actually performing the claimed function (the “filter identifying logic”). Thus it is unclear whether the claim requires both the sensor signal receiving logic and the filter identifying logic (based on the recited logics) or only the filter identifying logic (based on the recited functions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson 20110297756 in view of Abad 6887293.
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Peterson teaches operating a paint spraying system (Fig. 1) by:
operating a paint pump to pressurize paint along a flow path to a spray tip (pump 101 pressurizes paint along a flow path at 107 to a spray tip of spray gun 109; para. [0016]), wherein the paint spraying system includes a paint filter (113) configured to filter the paint, and the spray tip releases the paint in an atomized spray pattern (para. [0014]).
Peterson fails to teach receiving an operational characteristic representing operation of the paint spraying system; generating a filter status based on the operational characteristic; and generating a user interface display including a visual representation of the filter status, wherein the visual representation includes a gauge display element, the gauge display element defining a graphical volume that is fillable by a fill element that visually fills a given percentage of the graphical volume to indicate a remaining filter life of the paint filter, wherein the given percentage decreases as the remaining filter life decreases.
Abad teaches receiving an operational characteristic representing operation of the paint spraying system (pressure drop across filter; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); generating a filter status based on the operational characteristic (Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); and generating a user interface display including a visual representation of the filter status (Fig. 5, filter readout 70/72 in combination with filter gauge 71/73), wherein the visual representation includes a gauge display element (71/73), the gauge display element defining a graphical volume that is fillable by a fill element that visually fills a given percentage of the graphical volume to indicate a remaining filter life of the paint filter (see Fig. 5), wherein the given percentage decreases as the remaining filter life decreases (note that this configuration is merely the reverse of what Abad teaches – i.e. Abad’s fill element increases with the life of the filter whereas the claimed fill element decreases with the life of the filter, these are not patentably distinct as they show precisely the same information to a user, nevertheless the actual graphical volume is recited only as “fillable by a fill element that…” which nowhere requires actually decreasing the fill element as the remaining filter life decreases but only requires that the graphical volume could be filled by such a fill element, and Abad’s graphical volume could be filled by such a fill element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson to include receiving an operational characteristic representing operation of the paint spraying system; generating a filter status based on the operational characteristic; and generating a user interface display including a visual representation of the filter status, wherein the visual representation includes a gauge display element, the gauge display element defining a graphical volume that is fillable by a fill element that visually fills a given percentage of the graphical volume to indicate a remaining filter life of the paint filter, wherein the given percentage decreases as the remaining filter life decreases, as taught by Abad, in order to provide a filter monitoring system to indicate filter status (Abad; para. Col. 2, ll. 29-32).
While Peterson does not expressly teach a method of operating, Peterson does teach, as discussed above, what typical operation of the paint spraying system would entail. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While the rejection of claim 13 is not anticipatory, the normal and usual operation of Peterson would result in operating the spraying system as claimed except for the steps taught by Abad, as discussed above. Thus the instant claim is unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad given the normal and usual operation of Peterson and the method steps taught by Abad.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Abad further teaches the visual representation further includes an alert to change the paint filter (warning provided when first portion of a maximum allowable pressure drop is reached, which serves as an alert to change the filter, and this warning is displayed on the display terminal 50; Col. 3, ll. 5-6, Col. 20-31).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Abad further teaches the visual representation further includes a textual display element comprising a word that indicates the remaining filter life (message at 78 indicating “80 PERCENT FILTER READING”; Col. 5, ll. 16-18, 25-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad’s method such that the visual representation further includes a textual display element comprising a word that indicates the remaining filter life, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 13 and in order to provide a warning to the operator prior to shutting down operations and in order to prevent use of the spray gun once the filter status is unacceptable for continued use (Abad; Col. 2, ll. 66-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Peterson in view of Abad teaches, as discussed for claim 13 above, the operational characteristic comprises at least one of: a pressure drop across the paint filter (pressure drop across filter; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10), an operation time of the paint pump, and a volume of paint pumped through the paint filter (the italicized limitations are directed to recited alternatives, which are not all positively required as long as any one characteristic is taught in the prior art, and since Abad teaches pressure drop is used as the characteristic, the operation time and volume of paint are not required to be taught by the prior art).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler 20210370328.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Peterson teaches an airless paint spraying system (Fi. 1) comprising:
a handheld spray gun including a spray tip (tip of spray gun 109) configured to release paint in an atomized spray pattern (para. [0014]) and a paint filter configured to filter the paint;
a paint pump (101) configured to pump paint from a paint source (para. [0001];
a motor (para. [0015]) configured to drive the paint pump to pressurize the paint along a flow path to the spray tip (along 107 to 109), wherein the spray tip releases the paint in an atomized spray pattern (para. [0014]);
a paint filter (113) configured to filter the paint.
Peterson fails to teach a first pressure sensor disposed upstream of the paint filter and configured to detect a first pressure of the paint, a second pressure sensor disposed downstream of the paint filter and configured to detect a second pressure of the paint; and a filter diagnostic system, implemented by one or more processors, configured to: generate a filter status based on the first pressure of the paint and the second pressure of the paint; and generate an output representing the filter status.
Abad teaches a first pressure sensor disposed upstream of a paint filter and configured to detect a first pressure (40 detects first pressure), a second pressure sensor disposed downstream of the paint filter and configured to detect a second pressure (42 detects second pressure); and a filter diagnostic system configured to: generate a filter status based on the first pressure and the second pressure (pressure drop across filter, as determined by 39 from 40 and 42; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); and generate an output representing the filter status (Fig. 5, filter readout 70/72 in combination with filter gauge 72/73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson’s system to include a first pressure sensor disposed upstream of the paint filter and configured to detect a first pressure of the paint, a second pressure sensor disposed downstream of the paint filter and configured to detect a second pressure of the paint; and a filter diagnostic system, implemented by one or more processors, configured to: generate a filter status based on the first pressure of the paint and the second pressure of the paint; and generate an output representing the filter status, as taught by Abad, in order to provide a filter monitoring system to indicate filter status (Abad; para. Col. 2, ll. 29-32).
Peterson in view of Abad fails to expressly teach the handheld spray gun includes the paint filter.
Fideler teaches an airless paint spraying system (Figs. 1, 5; paras. [0029], [0037]) with a handheld spray gun (110) including a spray tip (129) and a paint filter configured to filter the paint (148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad’s apparatus such that the handheld spray gun includes the paint filter, as taught by Fideler, in order to facilitate removal of the filter when needed (Fideler; para. [0067]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson further teaches the airless paint spraying system comprises: a hose (107) forming at least a portion of the flow path from the paint pump to the spray gun (see Fig. 1), wherein the motor is configured to drive the paint pump to pressurize the paint at a pressure (motor configured to drive pump 101; para. [0015]).
Fideler further teaches the pressure is above one thousand pounds per square inch (PSI) (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the pressure is above one thousand pounds per square inch, as taught by Fideler, in order to provide high pressures (Fideler; para. [0032]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the second pressure sensor is disposed on the handheld spray gun (given that the pressure sensors measure pressures just upstream and downstream of the filter, the location of the filter on the handheld spray gun necessitates the pressure sensors being on the spraygun as well per the proposed combination discussed for claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the second pressure sensor is disposed on the handheld spray gun for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches, as discussed for claim 1 above, the filter diagnostic system is configured to compare the first pressure of the paint to the second pressure of the paint to determine a pressure drop across the filter and to generate the filter status based on the pressure drop across the filter (the filter diagnostic system includes device 39, which determines the pressure drop across the filter based on the respective pressures in 40 and 42) Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the filter diagnostic system is configured to compare the pressure drop across the filter to a pressure drop threshold and to generate the filter status based on the comparison of the pressure drop across the filter to the pressure drop threshold (see Fig. 4B, 80% threshold, filter status generated based in part on this as well as the displayed alarm at step 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad’s system such that the filter diagnostic system is configured to compare the pressure drop across the filter to a pressure drop threshold and to generate the filter status based on the comparison of the pressure drop across the filter to the pressure drop threshold, as taught by Abad, in order to provide a warning to the operator prior to shutting down operations and in order to prevent use of the spray gun once the filter status is unacceptable for continued use (Abad; Col. 2, ll. 66-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Abad further teaches the output comprises a visual representation of the filter status and wherein the filter diagnostic system is configured to control a display device to display the visual representation of the filter status (Fig. 5, gauge 71/73 on display shown in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the output comprises a visual representation of the filter status and wherein the filter diagnostic system is configured to control a display device to display the visual representation of the filter status, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Abad further teaches the filter status comprises a remaining filter life of the paint filter (shaded area of gauge 71/73 indicates remaining filter life).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the filter status comprises a remaining filter life of the paint filter, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Abad further teaches the filter diagnostic system is configured to: compare the remaining filter life to a threshold, and based on the comparison, generate the visual representation as an alert to change the paint filter (warning provided when first portion of a maximum allowable pressure drop is reached, which serves as an alert to change the filter, and this warning is displayed on the display terminal; Col. 3, ll. 5-6, Col. 20-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the filter diagnostic system is configured to: compare the remaining filter life to a threshold, and based on the comparison, generate the visual representation as an alert to change the paint filter, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1 and in order to provide an alert to the operator about the filter status prior to requiring operations to shut down (Abad; Col. 2, ll. 65-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1,and Abad further teaches the visual representation comprises a gauge display element and an associated textual status display element (71/73 and associated textual status display element 70/72), the gauge display element defining a graphical volume (graphical volume of 71/73) and including a fill element that visually fills at least a portion of the graphical volume to indicate the remaining filter life of the paint filter (shaded portion of 71/73 is fill element that visually fills at least a portion of the graphical volume to indicate the remaining filter life), and the associated textual status display element displayed proximate to the gauge display element and textually indicating the filter status (element 70/72 proximate 71/73 and textually indicates filter status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the visual representation comprises a gauge display element and an associated textual display element, the gauge display element defining a graphical volume and including a fill element that visually fills at least a portion of the graphical volume to indicate the remaining filter life of the paint filter, and the associated textual status display element displayed proximate to the gauge display element and textually indicating the filter status, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Abad further teaches the filter diagnostic system is configured to: define a plurality of filter life ranges (first portion of filter life is 80 percent of maximum allowable pressure drop, second portion is 90 percent of allowable pressure drop; Col. 3, ll. 20-25), each respective filter life range, of the plurality of filter life ranges, having a graphical element and a textual element associated with the respective filter life range (graphical element for 1st range indicated numerically when range has been reached at 70/72, associated textual element associated with first portion of filter life is a message at 78 indicating “80 PERCENT FILTER READING”, graphical element associated with second portion of filter life is indicated numerically when range has been reached at 70/72, associated textual element associated with second portion of filter life is a message at 78 indicating “ALARM CONDITION”; Col. 5, ll. 16-18, 25-46); determine that the remaining filter life of the paint filter is within a particular filter life range of the plurality of filter life ranges (Col. 5, ll. 25-46); and generate the output to include the graphical element and the textual element associated with the particular filter life range (graphical element at 70/72 will show reading in addition to messages discussed above; Col. 5, ll. 16-18, 25-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the filter diagnostic system is configured to: define a plurality of filter life ranges, each respective filter life range, of the plurality of filter life ranges, having a graphical element and a textual element associated with the respective filter life range; determine that the remaining filter life of the paint filter is within a particular filter life range of the plurality of filter life ranges; and generate the output to include the graphical element and the textual element associated with the particular filter life range, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1 and in order to provide a warning to the operator prior to shutting down operations and in order to prevent use of the spray gun once the filter status is unacceptable for continued use (Abad; Col. 2, ll. 66-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-11).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beier 20160317962.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Peterson in view of Abad fails to teach the filter diagnostic system is configured to wirelessly transmit the output to a mobile device.
Beier teaches, in a disclosure directed to a filtration monitoring system (see Title) for a paint spray booth (para. [0029]), wirelessly transmitting filter diagnostic output to a mobile device (server 130 generates user interface viewable by a user and is in wireless communication with communication apparatus 140, which may be a mobile device that receives notification regarding the predicted expiration time for a monitored filter; para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the filter diagnostic system is configured to wirelessly transmit the output to a mobile device, as taught by Beier, in order to provide for the dispatch of service personnel or technicians, maximize filter life, and increase labor efficiency, among other things (Beier; para. [0023]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CA 2598233 (hereinafter “233”, copy attached).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but fails to teach, as best understood, the filter diagnostic system further comprises sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal.
233 teaches a radio frequency identification system for a fluid treatment system (see Title) in which a signal is transmitted to a controller which is configured to receive the signal to identify the filter serial number (p. 33, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad further in view of Fideler’s system such that the filter diagnostic system further comprises sensor signal receiving logic configured to receive, from a sensor, a sensor signal indicative of the identity of the filter and filter identifying logic configured to identify the filter based on the sensor signal, as taught by 233, in order to monitor which filter has been installed in the system (233; p. 33, 2nd paragraph). Note that the logic is only configured to receive a signal containing information that identifies the filter and that the claim does not require the sensor itself, thus the RFID system in 233 wirelessly transmitting a signal containing filter identifying data to the controller, which is configured to extract the filter identifying information therefrom, meets the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Beier.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, but Peterson in view of Abad fails to teach the user interface display is displayed on a mobile device.
Beier teaches, in a disclosure directed to a filtration monitoring system (see Title) for a paint spray booth (para. [0029]), wirelessly transmitting filter diagnostic output to a mobile device (server 130 generates user interface viewable by a user and is in wireless communication with communication apparatus 140, which may be a mobile device that receives notification regarding the predicted expiration time for a monitored filter; para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peterson in view of Abad such that the user interface display is displayed on a mobile device, as taught by Beier, in order to provide for the dispatch of service personnel or technicians, maximize filter life, and increase labor efficiency, among other things (Beier; para. [0023]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood 20200009594 in view of Abad and further in view of Lange 2020050223.
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Wood teaches a control system (Fig. 1, controller 26) for a paint spraying system having a paint filter (para. [0062]), the control system comprising:
at least one processor (para. [0036]); and
memory (para. [0036]) storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the control system to:
operate a paint pump to pressurize paint along a flow path to a spray tip, wherein the spray tip releases the paint in an atomized spray pattern (pump controlled by controller 26, the flow path, spray tip, and atomized spray pattern form no part of the claimed invention, which is directed to a control system per se, though the controller is clearly capable of use with such components).
Wood fails to expressly teach the control system is configured to: receive paint pressure sensor data indicative of a pressure of the paint along the flow path; determine a filter status, indicative of a remaining life of the filter, based on the pressure of the paint along the flow path; receive paint pump runtime sensor data indicative of a runtime of the paint pump; receive paint volume sensor data indicative of a volume of the paint pumped through the paint filter; and generate a user interface display that simultaneously displays a first display element indicating the filter status, a second display element indicating the runtime of the paint pump, and a third display element indicating the volume of the paint pumped through the paint filter.
Abad teaches a system configured to: receive paint pressure sensor data indicative of a pressure of the paint along the flow path and determine a filter status, indicative of a remaining life of the filter, based on the pressure of the paint along the flow path (pressure drop across filter; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); and generate a user interface display that displays a first display element indicating the filter status (Fig. 5, filter readout 70/72 in combination with filter gauge 71/73).
Lange teaches a paint sprayer control/monitoring architecture (see Title) which receives paint pressure sensor data, receive pump runtime sensor data indicative of a runtime of the pump; receive volume sensor data indicative of a volume pumped through the paint filter; and generate a user interface display that simultaneously displays a second display element indicating the runtime of the paint pump and a third display element indicating the volume of the paint pumped through the paint filter (see Fig. 3B which simultaneously shows sensed pressure shown as 0 psi in the example GUI, sensed pump cycles indicative of pump runtime shown at 0 cycles in the example GUI, and sensed material usage shown as 0 Gal in the example GUI; [para. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood’s system such that the control system is configured to: receive paint pressure sensor data indicative of a pressure of the paint along the flow path and determine a filter status, indicative of a remaining life of the filter, based on the pressure of the paint along the flow path and generate a first display element indicating the filter status, as taught by Abad, receive paint pump runtime sensor data indicative of a runtime of the paint pump, receive paint volume sensor data indicative of a volume of the paint pumped through the paint filter, and generate a user interface display that simultaneously displays the first display element as taught by Abad, a second display element indicating the runtime of the paint pump, and a third display element indicating the volume of the paint pumped through the paint filter, as taught by Lange, in order to provide a filter monitoring system to indicate filter status (Abad; para. Col. 2, ll. 29-32) and in order to enable users to access the current status and historical performance of the system (Lange; para. [0072]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 18, and Abad further teaches the first display element includes a gauge display element, the gauge display element defining a graphical volume that is fillable by a fill element that visually fills a given percentage of the graphical volume to indicate a the remaining filter life of the paint filter (71/73 defines a graphical volume that is fillable by a fill element that visually fills a given percentage of the graphical volume to indicate remaining filter life).
While Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange’s given percentage increases as the remaining filter life decreases, the recitation “wherein the given percentage decreases as the remaining filter life decreases” as recited in the instant claim provides identical information to the user (i.e. the claim merely reverses the direction of the fill element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange’s system such that the given percentage decreases as the remaining filter life decreases as a mere matter of design choice for displaying remaining filter life with a fill element in a graphical volume. The simple reversal of the fill element as claimed compared to the prior art is analogous to the facts in In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.04 VI (A). in which the prior art disclosed a clock fixed to a stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moved with the steering wheel whereas the claim required the clock to move with the steering wheel (a mere reversal of the prior art arrangement). In this case, the direction of the fill element claimed is like the clock mounted to the steering wheel to be wound by a gear fixed to the stationary steering wheel column while the direction of the fill element in the prior art combination is like the clock mounted to the steering wheel column to be wound by a gear fixed to the steering wheel. The function is the same (i.e. the clock is wound/the remaining life of the filter is displayed graphically) even if the elements are swapped (i.e. clock and gear switch positions/fill element moves left to right or the empty portion of the graphical element – i.e. the portion which is not the fill element – essentially moves right to left to indicate filter life remaining).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Beier.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 18, but Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange fails to teach the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate the user interface display on a mobile device wirelessly connected to the control system.
Beier teaches, in a disclosure directed to a filtration monitoring system (see Title) for a paint spray booth (para. [0029]), wirelessly transmitting filter diagnostic output to a mobile device (server 130 generates user interface viewable by a user and is in wireless communication with communication apparatus 140, which may be a mobile device that receives notification regarding the predicted expiration time for a monitored filter; para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange’s system such that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate the user interface display on a mobile device wirelessly connected to the control system, as taught by Beier, in order to provide for the dispatch of service personnel or technicians, maximize filter life, and increase labor efficiency, among other things (Beier; para. [0023]). Note that the user interface is generated by the system (server 130) via instructions stored therein and the mobile device simply displays what was generated on the transmitting system. Thus the proposed modification of Wood in view of Abad further in view of Lange results in the control system generating the user interface display and transmitting that to the mobile device which merely displays it.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered and they are either moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments (claims 1, 18) or unpersuasive (claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), prior art rejection of claim 13 and its dependents).
Applicant’s argument (p. 8 of Remarks) that claim 1 as amended no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is unpersuasive. The filter diagnostic system is recited as “implemented by one or more processors” but this does not provide structure for what the filter diagnostic system actually is, just what implements it (i.e. puts it to use) (unless Applicant’s use of “implemented by” is intended to mean the one or more processors is the filter diagnostic system, in which case the recitations “generate a filter status…; and generate an output…” would not be required by the claim as processors, in and of themselves, do not contain instructions which would cause such functions to be carried out (and, if this were the intended meaning of “implemented by” then any processor of any prior art control system of a spraying system would be capable of the recited functions if coupled with a computer system carrying the requisite components for storing instructions and handling inputs and outputs).
Applicant’s argument (pp. 10-11 of Remarks) that Peterson in view of Abad fails to teach claim 13 as amended due to the direction the fill element moves as recited in the claim is unpersuasive. First, the method does not actually require filling the display element at all in any particular direction (or any structure which would cause the fill element to function as claimed), rather the method only requires generating a user interface display with a gauge element defining a graphical volume that is fillable. The prior art teaches this graphical volume which is fillable by a fill element as claimed (even if the prior art fills in the opposite direction). While not relied on in the rejection of claim 13, this reversing of the direction of the fill element, if positively recited in the claim, would not distinguish over the cited prior art because the information provided to the user is identical to that taught by the cited prior art (a graphical “progress bar” that shows the remaining life of the filter… the claim would decrease the indicated life of the filter to zero over time while the prior art would decrease the “empty” portion of the graphical volume to zero over time to show the same thing). See the rejection of claim 19 below for a more detailed discussion of how the prior art would apply to claim 13 if amended to positively recite this reverse filling of the graphical volume in some way.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights