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 .
Claim Objections
The claim numbering is objected to because the numbering jumps from claim 64 to claim 66.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 40-64, 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claims 40, 45, 50 lacks antecedent basis for “the attachment component”.
Claim 62 is vague and indefinite because in step e) it is not clear what the cleaning devices are attached to.
Claim 66 lacks antecedent basis for “the cleaning device”, “the painting booth”, etc. because it incorrectly depends from claim 40.
The remaining claims are merely rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 40-45, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nolte (US 10464084 B2).
Claims 40-42, 49:
Nolte teaches a method for using an electrostatic atomizer that is capable of painting the internal and external surfaces of a workpiece (1:54-60) by replacing an electrode assembly with smaller dimension (for internal painting) with an electrode assembly with larger dimensions (for external painting) (3:5-13). This is in the context where the workpiece is a vehicle body painted with electrostatic rotary atomizers (1:19-21).
Claims 43-44:
The modularity allows the components to be cleaned in a compact atomizer cleaning device (31:29-35). The components must be deposited in the cleaning device, making it a depositing device.
Claim 45:
The components are threaded (18:33-46), which are gripping contours in order to form form-fitting and/or friction-fitting connections.
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.
Claim(s) 46-48, 50-56, 59-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (US 10464084 B2) in view of Matsuda (US 6533861 B1) in view of Nolte2 (US 2004/0129208 A1).
Claims 46-48, 54-56:
Nolte is discussed above but does not teach the particulars of the depositing device (for receiving the modular components) or cleaning.
Matsuda teaches the storage and cleaning of replaceable sprayer parts of a vehicle coating robot (1:9-60). The depositing device is shown in Fig. 11-12 which grips the sprayer head, supplies air to break the vacuum suction coupling mechanism, the sprayer head is replaced, and spraying proceeds while cleaning the replaced sprayer head (col. 3-4).
Nolte2 teaches a rotatable and/or linearly movable carousel for storage and cleaning of replaceable sprayer part of a vehicle coating robot [0001-0002]. The carousel includes tool identification built in (claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Nolte and incorporate storage and cleaning of the modular parts. Matsuda and Nolte2 describe such storage and cleaning and find it beneficial in terms of space saving and efficiency.
Claim 50:
Nolte primarily teaches threaded attachment, but also clamping (18:33-45). Matsuda teaches a vacuum cup arrangement with a vacuum release operating element being arranged on the modular part (5:46-65).
Claims 51-53:
The depositing places are fixed, and non-interchangeable in this respect. Matsuda does teach modular parts having different shapes/sizes (col. 18-19), necessitating appropriately shaped depositing places. As noted above, Nolte2 teaches built-in sensors for identification.
Claim 59:
The gripping device is a self-centering device for subsequent cleaning operation (Matsuda Fig. 19-20).
Claim 60:
An go/no-go error display would have been obvious for conveying this relevant information to a user/operator, particularly given Nolte2 teaches built-in sensors for determining this information.
Claim(s) 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (US 10464084 B2) in view of Matsuda (US 6533861 B1) in view of Nolte2 (US 2004/0129208 A1) in view of JP 2000317354A to Ichimura.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach angled depositing places or a pivoted arrangement. However, Ichimura teaches depositing places that are angled (Fig. 2). The pivoting of such an angled depositing place would have been obvious to enable subsequent cleaning like in Matsuda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply/receive the modular parts at an angle corresponding to the angle of the incoming robotic sprayer and thereafter pivot the part to horizontal for the cleaning operation. Doing so effectively minimizes the movement of the robot arm by shifting a movement step to the receiver.
Claim(s) 61-64, 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte (US 10464084 B2) in view of Matsuda (US 6533861 B1) in view of Nolte2 (US 2004/0129208 A1) in view of Wehler (DE 102019215079 A1).
Claim 61:
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the particulars of the painting booth. However, Wehler teaches a painting booth for the robotic spraying of automobile bodies comprising the painting robot, conveyor (Fig. 1-2), and cleaning station [0111-0113]. Wehler does not specify hand washing for manual cleaning, but manually performing this task by hand would have been obvious given the automated version is known (if the cleaning equipment broke down the cleaning would need to occur by hand, for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the painting and spraying operation in the painting booth of Wehler. Wehler establishes that analogous painting processes are suitably performed in its painting booth.
Claim 62:
Wehler divides the space into treatment space where painting occurs and access area (i.e., maintenance cell). The access area is separated by a wall 154 having an access opening 166 [0238], is located in the corner [0273], and has a ventilation system [0086]. In addition, the maintenance of the robot sprayer occurs by introducing at least part of the sprayer through the access opening into the access area [0240]. Maintenance in this context includes cleaning by cleaning devices located in the access area [0111].
Claim 63:
Nolte2 shows the arrangement where the depositing device is located on either side of partition wall 154 (Fig. 1A).
Claim 64, 66:
Matsuda shows the cleaning device in the painting booth (Fig. 2). This is considered stationary because it is attached to a wall (Id).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights