DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie CN 111451023 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Xie teaches a spraying system (system 1 shown in figure 1) comprising: a spray head (10) including: a spray tip (112); a valve (opening and closing of spraying function, where the opening and closing of spraying function within 1 acts as a valve, abstract) actuatable between a closed position that restricts fluid flow to the spray tip and an open position that allows fluid flow to the spray tip (opening and closing of spraying function as described in abstract); a first valve actuating mechanism (trigger 20) operably coupled to the valve and manually actuatable by a user to actuate the valve to the open position (trigger 20 drives opening of valve of spray gun, page 4, paragraph [0003]); a second valve actuating mechanism (rod 30) operably coupled to the valve (coupled to valve through trigger 20 in figure 1); a robotic assembly (power box 45) configured to removably receive the spray head (45 clamps around spray head with bracket 2 as shown in figure 4), the robotic assembly comprising a robotically actuatable control module (driving mechanism 40 and control mechanism 50) configured to engage and actuate the second valve actuating mechanism to actuate the valve to the open position (function of deflector rod, driving mechanism and control mechanism described in abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Xie teaches the first valve actuating mechanism and the second valve actuating mechanism are operably coupled to one another (30 in contact with 20 in figure 1) such that movement of the first valve actuating mechanism causes a corresponding movement of the second valve actuating mechanism (movement of 20 to close valve will push against deflector rod 30 to rotate it against limiting assembly 53).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Xie teaches the spray head (1) comprises a spray head body (10), and the first valve actuating mechanism comprises a trigger (20) rotatably supported on and extending from the spray head body (20 shown pivotably connected to 10, page 6, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Xie teaches the robotically actuatable control module comprises a rotary actuator (31) having a recess (hole of 31 through which 30 is received) configured to receive the second valve actuating mechanism (30).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Xie teaches the second valve actuating mechanism has a range of rotation (range of motion between first and second positions of 30, abstract), about a rotational axis of the second valve actuating mechanism (rotational axis where 31 is mounted to output shaft of 40, pages 6-7, paragraph [0030]), that corresponds to actuation of the valve between the closed position and the open position (as described as first and second positions in abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Xie teaches the range of rotation comprises a first range of rotation (range of motion between first and second positions of 30, abstract), and wherein the rotation of the second valve actuating mechanism allowed by the recess comprises a second range of rotation that is substantially similar to an angular distance of the second range of rotation (the recess through which 30 passes does not restrict rotational motion of 30, such that the range of motion of 30 within the recess is the same as the range of motion of 30).
In regards to Independent Claim 15, Xie teaches a spray head (1) comprising: a spray tip (112); a valve actuatable between a closed position that restricts fluid flow to the spray tip and an open position that allows fluid flow to the spray tip (opening and closing of spraying function, where the opening and closing of spraying function within 1 acts as a valve, abstract); a first valve actuating mechanism (trigger 20) operably coupled to the valve and manually actuatable by a user to actuate the valve to the open position (trigger 20 drives opening of valve of spray gun, page 4, paragraph [0003]); a second valve actuating mechanism (rod 30) operably coupled to the valve (coupled to valve through trigger 20 in figure 1); and a coupler (31) configured to removably couple the second valve actuating mechanism to a robotic spray head control assembly (30 passes through a hole in 31, such that 30 can be removed from 31 by passing 30 back through the hole of 31).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Xie teaches the first valve actuating mechanism and the second valve actuating mechanism are operably coupled to one another (30 in contact with 20 in figure 1) such that movement of the first valve actuating mechanism causes a corresponding movement of the second valve actuating mechanism (movement of 20 to close valve will push against deflector rod 30 to rotate it against limiting assembly 53).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Xie teaches the spray head (1) comprises a spray head body (10), and the first valve actuating mechanism comprises a trigger (20) rotatably supported on and extending from the spray head body (20 shown pivotably connected to 10, page 6, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Xie teaches the robotic spray head control assembly comprises a rotary actuator (31) having a recess (hole of 31 through which 30 is received) configured to receive the second valve actuating mechanism (30).
In regards to Independent Claim 19, Xie teaches a robotic spray head control assembly (31, 40 and 50) comprising: a spray head coupler (clamp 72 and connecting part 74) configured to removably couple a spray head (10) to the robotic spray head control assembly (paragraph [0028]); a rotary actuator (31) having a recess (hole through 31 receiving 30) configured to receive a valve actuating mechanism (30) of the spray head (30 is in contact with trigger 20 of spray head 10); and a controller (control mechanism 50) is configured to: receive a control input (signal when triggering end 32 contacts limiting assembly 53, paragraph [0034]), and rotate the rotary actuator (controls rotating angle of 30, paragraph [0034]), based on the control input (paragraph [0034]), to actuate the valve actuating mechanism with at least one of an opening speed or a closing speed that is based on an adjustable speed parameter (controls starting or stopping of driving mechanism, where speed is either zero or the movement rate of driving mechanism 40, paragraph [0034], where it is not claimed that limitation adjustable requires the movement rate to change beyond either on or off, or changing of direction).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Redding GB 1571893 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Xie further teaches the rotary actuator comprises a servo motor (driving mechanism 40 can be a servo motor, page 7, paragraph [0032]). However, Xie does not teach a rotary potentiometer configured to generate a sensor signal indicative of a rotational position of the rotary actuator, and wherein the robotic assembly is configured to control the robotically actuatable control module based on the sensor signal. Redding teaches a rotary potentiometer configured to generate a sensor signal indicative of a position of an apparatus to allow feedback control of the position (Page 2, column 2, ll. 71-76), where the positional information is processed by a control system (Page 2, column 2, ll. 77-79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the potentiometer of Redding to generate a position signal of the actuator of Xie, in order to allow feedback control based upon the measured position of the actuator (Page 2, column 2, ll. 71-76).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Xie teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Xie further teaches that the first and second ranges of rotation (range of rotation from position P1 fully closed to P2 fully open). However, Xie does not teach that the range of rotation is 10 to 20 degrees. The degree of rotation of the rod (30) of Xie is a function of the position of the limiting switches (534 and 532), where movement of the limit switches can increase or decrease the limits of movement of the rod. Therefore, the amount of rotation of the rod is recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that moving the limit switches closer together leads to a reduction in movement of the trigger that opens the valve. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle distance that the deflecting rod can be rotated, was disclosed in the prior art by Xie, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to provide an angle of movement of the deflecting rod of between 10 and 20 degrees, in order to reduce the amount of motion of the trigger that reduces the amount of opening and closing of the valve that allows flow through the spray gun. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 7, that while the rotary actuator remains stationary, the recess of the rotary actuator is configured to allow rotation of the second valve actuating mechanism within the recess, thereby allowing movement of the valve from the closed position to the open position; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 10, that the robotic assembly comprises a plurality of alignment protrusions and the spray head includes a plurality of apertures configured to receive the plurality of alignment protrusions; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 12, that the controller is configured to adjust the adjustable speed parameter, to change the opening speed and/or closing speed, based on a configuration input; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 20, changing the opening speed or closing speed based on an input that indicates one or more of: a tip size of a spray tip, a detected tip wear, or a type of fluid being sprayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752