DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on May 5, 2026 was received. Claim 5 was canceled. Claims 1 and 4 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 18, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
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.
With regards to applicants arguments, the citation of a court case, citations of MPEP and the applications specification do not 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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji on claims 1-2 and 8 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Kieffer on claims 3 and 9-14 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Dawson on claims 4-7 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji (JP H07256163, provided translation cited below) in view of Jarvis (US 2005/0242205).
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).
Koji teaches the degree of wear of the nozzle tip is correlated with the flow rate of coating material (para. 9).
Koji does not explicitly teach the propulsion system to adjusts a relative position of the spray tip relative to the surface based on the indication of tip wear of the spray tip.
However, Jarvis teaches for a coating material flow rate, there is an optimum work piece traversal speed and spacing of the spray gun 12 to ensure that a coating of a given thickness is deposited (para. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the relationship of spacing of the spay gun to workpiece of Jarvis onto the control device of Koji because Jarvis teaches it will compensate for problems (para. 34).
In regards to claim 2, Koji and Jarvis as discussed, where 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 and Jarvis as discussed, where Koji teaches the paint is supplied at a known/high pressure (para. 2, 9).
Claims 3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Jarvis as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Kieffer (US 2020/0230632).
In regards to claim 3, Koji and Jarvis as discussed, but do 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 and Jarvis because Kieffer teaches it will provide the desired outcome of fluid atomization rate or pattern (para. 65, 67).
In regards to claim 9, Koji and Jarvis as discussed, but do 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 and Jarvis because Kieffer teaches control of the spray pattern generated by the spraying operation (para. 45).
In regards to claims 10-11, Koji, Jarvis 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, Jarvis 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, Jarvis and Kieffer as discussed, where Kieffer teaches an optical sensor which senses the spray pattern (para. 31, 50).
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji and Jarvis as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Dawson (US 2023/0009566).
In regards to claim 4, Koji and Jarvis as discussed above, where the prior art combination teaches the claimed indication of tip wear of the spray tip, but do 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 indication of tip wear of the spray tip.
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 and Jarvis 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 and Jarvis as discussed, but do 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 and Jarvis 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 and Jarvis as discussed, but do 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 and Jarvis 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed May 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koji and Jarvis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights