DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18651800 filed 5/1/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 configured to: receive an indication… generate a filter status… and generate an output” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1, 3, 5, 8-13, & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson 20110297756 in view of Abad 6887293.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Peterson teaches an airless paint spraying system (Fi. 1) comprising:
a spray tip (tip of spray gun 109);
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 filter diagnostic system (as follows) configured to: receive an indication of an operational characteristic representing operation of the airless paint spraying system; generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic; and generate an output representing the filter status.
Abad teaches a filter diagnostic system (as follows) configured to: receive an indication of an operational characteristic representing operation of the airless paint spraying system (pressure drop across filter; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic (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 filter diagnostic system configured to: receive an indication of an operational characteristic representing operation of the airless paint spraying system; generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic; 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).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Abad further teaches the filter diagnostic system is configured to control a display device (Fig. 2, display terminal 50) to display an indication of the filter status (as 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’s system such that the filter diagnostic system is configured to control a display device to display an indication of the filter status, as taught by Abad, for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson in view of Abad teaches, as discussed for claim 1 above, the operational characteristic comprises a pressure drop across the paint filter (Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Peterson in view of Abad 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 (Fig. 5, gauge 71/73).
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 in view of Abad’s system such that the output comprises a 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 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’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 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’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 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1,and Abad further teaches the visual representation comprises a gauge display element (71/73), 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).
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 visual representation comprises a gauge 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, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Peterson in view of Abad 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 associated with the respective filter life range (graphical 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 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 associated with the particular filter life range (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 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 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 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).
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.
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 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 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, 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 comprises 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 represents 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’s method such that the visual representation represents a remaining filter life of the paint filter, as taught by Abad, for the reasons cited above for claim 13.
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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinne 20220234062.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Peterson further teaches the airless paint spraying system comprises: a spray gun having the spray tip (spray gun 109); and 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]).
Peterson in view of Abad fails to expressly teach the pressure is above one thousand pounds per square inch (PSI).
Kinne teaches an airless fluid sprayer for paint (Fig. 2A; paras. [0031] & [0039]) with a pump (Fig. 2A, pump 42; para. [0032]), the pump configured to pressurize the paint to above one thousand pounds per square inch (500-5000 psi, which significantly overlaps the claimed range; para. [0039]).
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 pressure is above one thousand pounds per square inch, as taught by Kinne, in order to generate the atomized fluid spray (Kinne; para. [0039]). The proposed modification includes a range of pressures which significantly overlaps the claimed range and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 4 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad, as applied to claims 1 & 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Beier 20160317962.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Peterson in view of Abad 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’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]).
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]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuzaki 20110197761.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Peterson in view of Abad fails to teach the operational characteristic comprises an operation time of the paint pump.
Matsuzaki teaches a filter monitoring system (Fig. 4) which monitors an operational characteristic representing operation of a system in which the filter is installed, the operational characteristic being a cumulative time of operation of the device in which the filter is installed (in this case, an air filter is monitored, and the operational characteristic monitored is the cumulative operating time of a fan with the filter installed; paras. [0059]-[0060]).
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 operational characteristic comprises an operation time of the paint pump because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Peterson in view of Abad’s system which monitored pressure drop across a filter versus the claimed system which monitors an operation time of the paint pump, which is analogous to Matsuzaki’s system which monitors operation time of a fan which forces air through an air filter), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (Peterson in view of Abad’s system with monitored pressure drop and the claimed operation time of the component which drives fluid through the filter, as taught by Matsuzaki, were known for indicating filter status), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Peterson in view of Abad’s monitoring of pressure drop or Matsuzaki’s monitoring of operation time of the component which drives fluid through the filter could have been used to predictably provide an indication of filter status). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Abad, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verdegan 20150361840.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Peterson in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Peterson in view of Abad fails to teach the operational characteristic comprises a volume of paint pumped through the paint filter.
Verdegan teaches existing fluid filter condition sensors were known which utilized pressure drop data or the volume of fluid filtered (para. [0034]).
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 operational characteristic comprises a volume of paint pumped through the paint filter because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Peterson in view of Abad’s system which relied on pressure drop data versus the claimed volume of fluid pumped through the filter, as taught by Verdegan), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Peterson in view of Abad’s use of pressure drop data and the claimed volume of fluid pumped through the filter, as taught by Verdegan, were known for indicating filter status), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Peterson in view of Abad’s use of pressure drop data or Verdegan’s use of volume of fluid pumped through the filter could have been used to predictably provide an indication of filter status). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood 20200009594 in view of Abad.
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 receive an operational characteristic representing operation of the paint spraying system; generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic; and generate output representation of the filter status.
Abad teaches a filter diagnostic system (as follows) configured to: receive an indication of an operational characteristic representing operation of an airless paint spraying system (pressure drop across filter; Col. 2, ll. 60-67, Col. 3, ll. 1-10); generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic (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 Wood’s system to include a filter diagnostic system configured to: receive an indication of an operational characteristic representing operation of the airless paint spraying system; generate a filter status based on the operational characteristic; 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).
Regarding Dependent Claim 19, Wood in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 18, and Wood in view of Abad teaches, as discussed for claim 18 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Abad, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Beier.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Wood in view of Abad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 18, but Wood in view of Abad fails to teach the output representation is wirelessly transmitted 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 Wood in view of Abad’s system such that the output representation is wirelessly transmitted 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]).
Conclusion
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