DETAILED ACTION
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:
at least one guide 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 § 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 1-14 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 regards to claim 1-line 3, claim 2-line 3, the recitation of “the guide system” is unclear if the reference is to one or more than one of the previously recited at least one guide system. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the at least one guide system.
In regards to claim 5-line 2, the recitation of “a releasable connection” is unclear if the reference should be distinct or should be connected to the previous recitation found in claim 4. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the releasable connection.
In regards to claim 7-line 2, the recitation of “a first piece of equipment” is unclear if the reference should be distinct or should be connected to the previous recitation found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 7, the recitations of “first umbilical connection” and “second umbilical connection” are unclear if the recitations should be distinct or should be the included to the previous recitation at least one umbilical connection found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 8-line 1, the recitation of “at least one umbilical connection” is unclear if the reference should be distinct or should be connected to the previous recitation found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 10-line 2, the recitation of “plurality of guide systems” is unclear if these are different or should include the previously recited at least one guide system of claim 1. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the at least one guide system comprises a plurality of guide systems.
In regards to claim 12-line 6, the recitation of “at least one guide system” is unclear if these are different or should include the previously recited at least one guide system of claim 1. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the at least one guide system.
In regards to claim 13-line 4/5, the recitation of “the guide system” is unclear if the reference is to one or more than one of the previously recited at least one guide system. For purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the at least one guide system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis (US 2015/0343473) in view of Thompson (US 2023/0041079).
In regards to claim 1, Mathis teaches a coating application system comprising:
a plurality of track sections (228, 230, 234, 236, 242, 244) and cross beams (300) (guide systems) (fig. 1-2, 5-7, 12-14, 17-20; para. 43, 46-48);
robot base guide rails (410, first movable support) moves along the cross beam (fig. 1-2, 5-7, 12-14, 17-20; para. 39, 46-48, 67);
a robotic device (400, robot arm) is connected to the robot base guide rails, where the robotic device comprises an end effector (416, first tool) at a free end and a robot base (402) connected to the robot base guide rails (fig. 12-14, 17-20; para. 42, 57-58, 67);
at least one paint pot (518, first piece of equipment) is provided on a personal platform (500), where the personnel platform is movable relative to the robot base (402) (fig. 14; para. 62, 67).
Mathis does not explicitly teach at least one umbilical connection to the first tool and the paint pot/first piece of equipment.
However, Thompson teaches a machine (10) comprising a robotic arm (12) with hoses (22, 28, umbilical connection) and a hose attachment manifold (30), provide along a robotic arm (12), to connect a material supply (20/26) to a tool (14) such as a paint spray gun (fig. 1; para. 16-17).
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 hose attachment manifold and hoses of Thompson onto the robotic device and paint pot of Mathis because Thompson teaches reduce breaking of the hoses (para. 24).
In regards to claim 2, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the paint pot is on the personnel platform (500, second movable support), and the personnel platform is movable relative to the robot base (402) (fig. 14; para. 62, 67).
In regards to claim 3, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the personnel platform comprises a platform base (502) which pivots about a platform pivot axis (506) (articulated connection), the platform base connects to the robotic device (fig. 15, 17; para. 61, 82).
In regards to claim 4, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the end effector (416) is changeable, by removal from second arm (414) of the robotic device (fig. 14-16; para. 57-58).
In regards to claims 5-6, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Thompson teaches the hose attachment manifold (30) which provide a release-able connection between the paint pot (first piece of equipment) of Mathis and the robot base guide rails (410, first movable support) (Thompson-fig. 1; para. 16-17; Mathis-fig. 14; para. 62).
In regards to claim 8, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Thompson teaches the hoses are connected to the robotic arm by the hose attachment manifold (30) (fig. 1; para. 16-17).
In regards to claim 9, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the coating application system is used to paint aircraft (102) (para. 1-2; para. 37).
In regards to claim 10, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the plurality of track sections (228, 230, 234, 236, 242, 244) and cross beams (300) (guide systems) which are provided around the aircraft (fig. 1-2, 5-7, 12-14, 17-20; para. 43, 46-48);
In regards to claim 11, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, where Mathis teaches the coating application system is within a hanger (152) (fig. 1-2; para. 39, 73).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis and Thompson as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-11 above, and further in view of Hampson (US 2017/0106393).
In regards to claim 7, Mathis and Thompson as discussed above to teach the claimed the first tool is associated with at least a first piece of equipment dedicated to the first tool and connected directly or indirectly to the first tool by a first umbilical connection, but do not explicitly teach at least a second piece of equipment common to a plurality of tools and connected directly or indirectly to the first tool by a second umbilical connection, each first piece of equipment being releasably connected to the first movable support, each second piece of equipment being permanently connected to the first movable support.
However, Hampson teaches an end effector (58) comprising a dispensing tip (88) and valve (84) are associated with a compressed air tank (110, first piece of equipment) and directly connected to the valve by a first umbilical connection, as well as with a fluid pump (80, second piece of equipment) directly connected to the first tool by a dispensing tube (86, second umbilical connection) and the compressed air tank is detachably connected to the head (102), and the fluid pump (80) is permanently connected to the head, where elements are detachably connected and capable of be located remotely, outside the end effector the compressed air reservoir (110) (fig. 6-7; para. 39-40).
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 end effector of Hampson onto the end effector of Mathis and Thompson because Hampson teaches it will provide painting of various widths (para. 7).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis and Thompson as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-11 above, and further in view of Umezawa (US 2010/0230511).
In regards to claims 12-14, Mathis and Thompson as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the painting installation comprises: at least one storage zone configured to store at least one tool, at least one tool accessory or at least one consumable and positioned as a continuation of the painting booth, and at least one guide system being sufficiently long to be positioned in part in the storage zone for the at least one tool; at least one support configured to carry the at least one tool, at least one tool accessory or at least one consumable, the at least one support and the guide system being configured and arranged such that a robotic arm sliding along the guide system is able to reach a tool, a tool accessory or a consumable positioned on the support; at least one support carriage configured to carry at least one tool.
However, Umezawa teaches a coating line (1) comprising a robot device (13) with a coater unit (14), where the robot device is moved along tracking rails (12). Umezawa teaches the robot device moves from a painting position to a cartridge changer (41, storage zone) which stores a plurality of paint cartridges for replacement onto the coater unit (fig. 1-2; para. 73, 80-81). Umezawa teaches the paint cartridges moved from storage to installation using a cartridge handler (44) (fig. 8-10; para. 128, 133).
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 cartridge changer, the robot device and coater of Umezawa onto the coating application system of Mathis and Thompson because Umezawa teaches it will provide easy replacement of paint cartridges (para. 10).
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
Prosecution Insights