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 .
In the amendment filed on 03/05/2026, applicant has amended claims 27, 29, 32, 36 and 37. The art and 112 2nd rejections described in the NF action sent on 12/09/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, amended claims have been found rejectable under 112 rejections as follow:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27, and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 27, on line 4 and lines 9-12, recites the phrases, “a rotatable spray gun…” and “a processor configured…to guide the rotatable spray gun at a non-normal angle with respect to a plane of the wheel in accordance with the non-normal angle of the surface profile of the wheel…”. The requirement that the spray gun being a rotatable gun is a new matter. On page 5, applicant’s specification teaches a rotatable item to be painted. The original specification also teaches a rotatable support (wheel) with respect to the booth and/or the or each spray gun (see on page 6). In addition, the requirement that the processor is configured to guide the rotatable spray gun at a non-normal angle with respect to a plane of the wheel” is not supported by the original specification. It is noted applicant’s specification teaches an actuator that is configured in use to support a spray gun (see Abstract); and “The actuator 12 supports a spray gun 14” (see specification on page 12). An actuator rotating a spray gun is not taught in the applicant’s disclosure.
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 27 and 29-37 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.
In claim 27, lines 10 and 17, the phrase “the spray gun” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the rotatable spray gun” is assumed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record (Teichman et al) teaches displaceable applicator head 34 (see para [0060]). Teichman et al does not teach a rotatable spray gun, instead the applicator head 34 is vertically or horizontally positioned with the rotation of the object (see para [0060]). Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a portable spray booth for coating a wheel with a sprayable material, the portable spray booth for enclosing the wheel and comprising, among others, an actuator configured in use to support a rotatable spray gun, at least one laser, a detector, a processor configured in use to process the profile signal to obtain a control signal which is output to the actuator and the rotatable spray gun to guide the rotatable spray gun at a non-normal angle with respect to a plane of the wheel in accordance with the non-normal angle of the surface profile of the wheel, and a motor configured in use to continuously-rotate the wheel with respect to non-normal angle of the rotatable spray gun.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 PM.
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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights