DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 24, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not shown that a search and/or examination burden would be greatly increased.
This is not found persuasive because the determination of serious burden is left to the examiner. In this case, as explained in the restriction/election requirement mailed on October 28, 2025, each group has a distinct invention. Search and consideration of the multiple inventions increases the time needed to provide a determination of patentability by increasing the review of prior art of each invention and would place an undue burden on the Examiner already substantially limited in examination time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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:
control system 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji (JP H07256163, provided translation cited below).
In regards to claim 1, Koji teaches a painting apparatus comprising:
a coating machine comprising a nozzle (2, paint applicator) including a spray/nozzle tip having at least one tip orifice through which paint is sprayed (fig. 1-3; para. 8-9);
a reciprocating device (3, propulsion system) comprising a motor (9, actuators) that moves the coating machine relative to a surface of a workpiece to be sprayed (fig. 1-2; para. 8-9); and
a control device (7, control system) which is
provided a spray amount (spray parameter) (para. 6, 9-10);
uses a first signal (first actuator control signal) to set a moving speed of the nozzle (para. 6, 9-10);
control the coating machine to spray paint onto the workpiece (para. 6, 9-10);
monitor the degree of wear of the nozzle tip (para. 10, 12-14)
as the spray amount changes due to the wear of the nozzle tip, the moving speed of the nozzle is changed (para. 12-13); and
the control device provide a second signal when it is determined to change the moving speed (para. 12-13).
In regards to claim 2, Koji teaches changes to the flow rate of the paint changes as the wear of the nozzle tip occurs and where the paint is supplied at a known/high pressure (fig. 1-3; para. 9-10, 12).
In regards to claim 8, Koji teaches the paint is supplied at a known/high pressure (para. 2, 9).
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 3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Kieffer (US 2020/0230632).
In regards to claim 3, Koji teaches as discussed, but does not explicitly teach a paint pump, wherein the indication of the change in flow rate of the paint comprises an indication of a change in a pump speed of the paint pump.
However, Kieffer teaches a spray system (100) comprising a pump (102, paint pump) which feeds a fluid (paint) to an applicator (110). Kieffer teaches the pump is controlled by a controller (111) to maintain fluid pressure (target pressure) based on fluid flow through a tip (116) of the applicator. Kieffer teaches a motor (103) is connected to the pump and a speed is controlled by a spray system monitoring and control system (600) (fig. 6-7, 16; para. 24, 41, 47, 49, 54-57, 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the pump and controller/control system of Kieffer onto the coating machine of Koji because Kieffer teaches it will provide the desired outcome of fluid atomization rate or pattern (para. 65, 67).
In regards to claim 9, Koji teaches as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the control system is configured to: identify a first tip orifice size of the tip orifice; determine a current tip orifice size of the tip based on at least one of: an indication of a flow rate of paint through the tip orifice, and an indication of a pressure of the paint; generate a comparison result based on a comparison of the current tip orifice size to the first tip orifice size; and generate a wear status indicative of an amount of wear of the tip based on the comparison result.
However, Kieffer teaches the controller (111) identifies the tip that has been installed, the relationship between the tip characteristics new and wear of the tip and the corresponding flow rate change, show the pressure set and based on data suggest show tip life (fig. 5-7; para. 23, 36-39, 43, 52, 54, 58, 64-65, 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the tip monitoring, flow control and controller/control system of Kieffer onto the coating machine of Koji because Kieffer teaches control of the spray pattern generated by the spraying operation (para. 45).
In regards to claims 10-11, Koji and Kieffer as discussed, where Kieffer teaches the control system comprises determination of thickness of the fluid to be applied to the surface along with adjustments based on tip wear (fig. 7, 12; para. 50, 52, 58) and Koji teaches the first signal (first actuator control signal) to set a moving speed of the nozzle (para. 6, 9-10).
In regards to claim 12-13, Koji and Kieffer as discussed, where Kieffer teaches the control system comprises fluid coverage logic (610) which provides information regarding spray pattern area and coverage area (para. 50, 65).
In regards to claim 14, Koji and Kieffer as discussed, where Kieffer teaches an optical sensor which senses the spray pattern (para. 31, 50).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Dawson (US 2023/0009566).
In regards to claims 4-5, Koji teaches as discussed, but does not explicitly teach a position sensor configured to generate a sensor signal indicating a relative position of the spray tip relative to the surface to be sprayed, the control system is configured to: generate the second actuator control signal based on the sensor signal and the movement parameter the movement parameter represents at least one of: a change in the relative position, or a change in the speed.
However, Dawson teaches a mobile spraying system (10) comprising a distance sensor (48, position sensor) which provides distance between the surface of the object and the mobile spraying system, where the information is provided to a control module (28). Dawson teaches the positioning of the mobile spraying system is changed based on the data from the distance sensor in order to maintain the desired distance between the mobile spraying system and the surface of the object (fig. ; para. 60-64, 119-120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the distance sensor and control module of Dawson onto the coating machine of Koji because Dawson teaches it will provide proper positioning between the nozzle of the mobile spraying system and the surface of the object (para. 74, 77).
In regards to claim 6, Koji teaches as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the robotic paint spraying system comprises a ground drone having at least one of: one or more tracks, or one or more wheels.
However, Dawson teaches the mobile spraying system (10) comprises wheels (30/32) on a base (18). Dawson teaches wheels are powered to provide movement to the mobile spraying system (fig. 1a-c; para. 48-49, 73-74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the wheels controlled by the control module of Dawson onto the coating machine of Koji because Dawson teaches it will provide proper positioning between the nozzle of the mobile spraying system and the surface of the object (para. 74, 77)..
In regards to claim 7, Koji teaches as discussed, but does not explicitly teach the robotic paint spraying system comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Dawson teaches the mobile spraying system (10) comprises a support (22) which allows vertical (aerial) movement to a nozzle (44) where the movement is controlled by the control module (fig. 1a-c; para. 50, 55, 166).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the support and control module of Dawson onto the coating machine of Koji because Dawson teaches it will provide proper positioning between the nozzle of the mobile spraying system and the surface of the object (para. 74, 77).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717