DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of the scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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 19-38 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 19, "the sensor signal" in line 6, "one of the nozzles" in line 8; Claim 20, "the at least one sensor" in line 1; claim 21 “the actuator" in line 4; Claim 22, "the at least one actuator" in line 1 (where it is noted that the arguable introduction of “the actuator” in claim 21 makes it unclear which is being referenced, “the respective control valve” in line 4, “the applicator pumps” in line 5; Claim 25, "the influence" in line 6; Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 19-22, 28, 34-38 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mossige (US 2022/0364892);
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossige as applied to claims 19 and 21 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Bremmer (US 11684938);
Claim(s) 24-27, 30, 32 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossige as applied to claim 19 and 28, 29 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Wang (US 2022/0241810);
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossige as applied to claim 19 and 28 (as indefinitely understood) above;
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossige in view of Wang as applied to claim 19 and 28, 29 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Wood (US 12194485.)
Mossige discloses in claim 19: An application system (12 for a robot 10, that can include multiple robots per ph 0047) for applying an application agent (paint) to a component (vehicle body part, ph 0044), with a) an applicator (18) with at least one nozzle (bell cup nozzle 20 with air shaping discharge holes 34/36) for applying the application agent to the component (as discussed), b) a supply line (at 22/24) for supplying the applicator with the application agent, c) a sensor (pressure sensors 48/50 about air flow regulator, and air flow sensor 54, and pressure sensors 56/58 in line 24 about pump 28) which is adapted to measure a measured variable in the supply line to the applicator or in the applicator and supplies a corresponding sensor signal (ph 0062), and d) a monitoring unit (42) which is connected to the sensor and evaluates the sensor signal of the sensor, e) wherein the monitoring unit recognizes by evaluating the sensor signal whether one of the nozzles of the applicator shows a creeping nozzle clogging (per ph 0031-0037; and ph 0062-0072.)
Mossige discloses in claim 20: The application system according to claim 19, wherein the at least one sensor belongs to one of the following types of sensors: a) pressure sensors (48/50 or 56/58) which are adapted to measure a pressure of the application agent in the supply line or in the applicator, b) material flow sensors (air flow sensor 54) which are adapted to measure a material flow of the application agent flowing in the supply line to the applicator.
Mossige discloses in claim 21: The application system according to claim 19, wherein a) the application system comprises at least one actuator (pneumatic actuated fluid regulator/proportional valve 32 ph 0048 or pump/compressors 26/28) for controlling the supply line and/or the applicator, b) the actuator is controlled by a control signal (via 42 for each), and c) the monitoring unit (42) detects the control signal for the actuator (ph 0060 and 0062) and takes it into account in the evaluation of the sensor signal in order to distinguish a different actuation of the applicator from a creeping nozzle clogging (i.e. determines the level of clogging for adjustment purposes as discussed in ph 0062.)
Mossige discloses in claim 22: The application system according to claim 21, wherein the at least one actuator belongs to one of the following types of actuators: a) control valves (proportional control valve 32) which control an application agent flow to the individual nozzles (as shown), the respective control signal controlling the valve position of the respective control valve, b) pumps (26/28) which deliver an application agent flow to the applicator pumps, wherein the respective control signal controls the application agent flow delivered by the respective pump (as shown and discussed.)
Mossige discloses in claim 23: The application system according to claim 21, wherein a) each of the nozzles of the applicator is assigned a control valve as actuator (32), which controls the application agent flow through the nozzle[s], b) the control valve[[s]] actuated by a control signal (from 42) which controls the switching time (on/off time for fluid passing there through in a proportional manner as discussed above) of the respective control valve, c) the monitoring unit receives the control signal[[s]] for the individual control valve[[s]] in order to be able to detect a creeping nozzle clogging, and d) the monitoring unit evaluates the sensor signals in an observation period after a switching time of the control valves (ph 0072 where calibration of the control valve can be performed to extract an equation for the fluid control based on the clogging amounts.); but Mossige does not disclose: each nozzle having its own control valve, and comparing the pressure and flow signals nozzles to each other to detect creeping nozzle clogging; but considering that Bremmer teaches: multiple nozzles each with their own control valve 30 and sensor 26 and comparing the nozzles to detect clogging (figure 1 Col 1 ln 65 – Col 2 ln 5, and Col 13 ln 22-33, and all for the purpose of for example, accurate spraying of the liquid to be dispensed.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mossige as taught in Bremmer with multiple nozzles that each have their own control valve and sensor and being able to compare the nozzles to detect creeping nozzle clogging as taught in Bremmer, and all for the purpose of for example, accurate spraying of the liquid to be dispensed.
Mossige discloses in claim 24: The application system according to claim 19, wherein a) the monitoring unit comprises [a computer] (ph 0052) on which a machine learning algorithm runs during operation (to determine the amount of clogging ph 0062), and b) the machine learning algorithm is adapted to evaluate the sensor signal (as discussed) and also the control signal and recognizes whether one of the nozzles shows a creeping nozzle clogging (id.) Mossige does not disclose: using an AI computer (i.e. smart computer); but Wang teaches: using an AI computer (300 figure 1a, see ph 0105) (provided for the purpose of adaptive control of the coating system);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mossige as taught in Wang with an AI computer, all for the purpose of adaptive control of the coating system.
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 25: The application system according to claim 24, wherein a) the machine learning algorithm is adapted to learn the relationship (as discussed in Mossige above, ph 0070-0072) between the control signal and the resulting sensor signal in a training process by supervised learning without a nozzle clogging (i.e. blocking), b) the machine learning algorithm in application mode calculates a residual value from the measured sensor signal, from which the influence of the control signal is subtracted, and (as discussed) c) the monitoring unit is adapted to evaluate the residual value and recognizes an anomaly of the residual value as an indication of a creeping nozzle clogging (for later application during process control.)
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 26: The application system according to claim 25, wherein a) the monitoring unit is adapted to determine switching times of the control valves (per ph 0064-0068) of the individual nozzles, and b) the monitoring unit is adapted to evaluate the residual values in each case in an observation period following the switching times (as discussed.)
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 27: The application system according to claim 25, wherein the monitoring unit is adapted to compare the residual values after the switching times of different nozzles in order to detect a creeping nozzle clogging.
Mossige discloses in claim 28: The application system according to claim 19, further comprising a) an application robot (10 figure 1) for moving the applicator (12), and b) a robot controller (42) for controlling the application robot.
Mossige discloses in claim 29: The application system according to claim 28, wherein a) several application robots (ph 0047) are provided, each of which moves an applicator (18), b) the individual application robots are each controlled by a robot controller (42), c) the application robots are arranged together in a robot cell (grouping as discussed), Mossige does not explicitly disclose: a cell controller is provided for controlling the robot cell, wherein the cell controller controls the robot controllers and/or the application robots in the robot cell in a comprehensive manner; but considering one skilled in the art of robotic control would see a need for system coordination of multiple robots via a central controller, for the purpose of assembly line throughput coordination:
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mossige as suggested by those skilled in the art, as well as arguably necessary by Mossige, to provide Mossige with a cell controller to control the robot cell of Mossige, wherein the cell controller can control the robot controllers and/or the application robots in the robot cell in a comprehensive manner, all for example, for the purpose of assembly line throughput coordination.
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 30: The application system according to claim 29, further comprising a connectivity computer (controller 42), a) the connectivity computer being connected on the one hand to the robot controllers (as modified for the reasons discussed above) and/or the cell controller and receiving the control signals and the sensor signals from the robot controllers and/or the cell controller, b) while the connectivity computer, on the other hand, is connected to the computer and supplies the control signals and the sensor signals to the computer (as discussed as modified for the reasons above); but Mossige does not disclose: using an AI computer (i.e. smart computer); but Wang teaches: using an AI computer (300 figure 1a, see ph 0105) (provided for the purpose of adaptive control of the coating system);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mossige as taught in Wang with an AI computer, all for the purpose of adaptive control of the coating system.
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 31: The application system according to claim 29, does not explicitly disclose, although Wood teaches: a database computer (servers and computers connected there to Col 9 ln 20 to Col 10 ln 42) for storing the control signals and the sensor signals (as discussed), wherein the database computer is connected to the connectivity computer and receives the control signals and the sensor signals from the connectivity computer (for monitoring and control of the paint systems operational status and to give a warning.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Mossige/Wang as taught in Wood with a system that includes a database computer such as servers and computers connected there to execute database software application as taught in Wood for storing the control signals and the sensor signals as taught in Wood, wherein the database computer is connected to the connectivity computer and receives the control signals and the sensor signals from the connectivity computer, as taught therein all for the purpose of monitoring and control of the paint systems operational status and to give a warning.
Mossige discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 32: The application system according to claim 30, but does not explicitly disclose, although Wang teaches: a graphics computer (display as modified by Wang in 300 figure 1) for displaying the result of the evaluation (to an operative), wherein the graphics computer is connected to the connectivity computer or the database computer (as discussed.)
Mossige discloses in claim 33: The application system according to claim 19, wherein a) several applicators (18 on each of the robots 10 ph 0047) are provided, b) a plurality of supply lines (of 22/24) are provided for supplying the applicators with the application agent (as necessarily the case for each of the robotic arms 10), one of the supply lines being assigned to each of the applicators (as shown each has its own supply line), c) at least one of the sensors is assigned to each of the supply lines and the sensors each measure a measured variable in the respective supply line and supply a corresponding sensor signal (pressure sensors 48/50 about air flow regulator, and air flow sensor 54, and pressure sensors 56/58 in line 24 about pump 28), d) the monitoring unit (42) compares the sensor signals from sensors from different supply lines with one another in order to distinguish a creeping nozzle clogging in the individual supply lines per ph 0031-0037; and ph 0062-0072) from a different actuation of the respective supply line, e) at least one of the actuators is assigned to each of the supply lines (compressor or regulator), and f) the monitoring unit takes into account the control signals for actuators in different supply lines in order to distinguish a creeping nozzle clogging in the individual supply lines from a different actuation of the respective supply line (each unit is assigned to each arm so the nozzle clogging is determinable.)
Mossige discloses in claim 34: A monitoring method for an application system according to claim 19, comprising the following steps: a) supplying the application agent (paint) to the applicator through the supply line, b) measuring at least one measured variable in the supply line to the applicator or in the applicator by means of the sensor and generating a corresponding sensor signal (per ph 0031-0037; and ph 0062-0072), and c) evaluating the sensor signal to detect a creeping nozzle clogging of one of the nozzles of the applicator (id).
Mossige discloses in claim 35: The monitoring method according to claim 34, further comprising the following steps: a) actuating the supply line and/or the applicator with a control signal (to the control valve 32 or pumps 26/28 via 42), and b) evaluation of the control signal to distinguish a creeping nozzle clogging from a different actuation (as discussed id).
Mossige discloses in claim 36: The monitoring method according to claim 34, wherein a) the machine learning algorithm learns the relationship between the control signal and the resulting sensor signal in a training process by supervised learning without a nozzle clogging (per ph 0072 via blocking and calibration), b) the machine learning algorithm in application mode calculates a residual value from the measured sensor signal (i.e. the calibrated lookup table or function), from which the influence of the control signal is subtracted (per ph’s 0062-0072 as discussed above), and c) the monitoring unit evaluates the residual value (i.e. the blocking percentage ph 0065) and recognizes an anomaly of the residual value as an indication of a creeping nozzle clogging (as discussed above.)
Mossige discloses in claim 37: The monitoring method according to claim 36, wherein a) that the monitoring unit determines the respective switching times of the control valves (i.e. the on/off of the valve is determined via 42) of the individual nozzles, and b) that the monitoring unit evaluates the residual values in each case in an observation period following the switching times (i.e. based on the flow rate, the time is monitored and the residual blocking percentage is determined, id.)
Mossige discloses in claim 38: The monitoring method according to claim 37, wherein the monitoring unit compares the residual values of different nozzles with one another in order to detect a creeping nozzle clogging (i.e. the calibrated nozzle, versus the actual nozzle used in practice.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753