DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to an application filed 06/24/2014. Claims 1-11 in the application are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2014 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, line 9 recites the limitation “the two elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the two elements” as “the at least two elements” recited in line 7. To correct this problem, amend line 9 to recite “the at least two elements”.
As regards to claim 3, line 2 recites “first and second parts”, however according to the specification ([0077]), the “first and second parts” recited in claims 3-5 are the “at least two elements” recited in claim 1 and thus unclear why the “first and second parts” recited in claims 3-5 are introduced as new elements in claim 3. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “wherein the at least two elements comprise first and second parts”. Applicant is invited to clarify and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 3, line 2 recites the limitation “the first part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the first part” as “the at least first and second parts including a first part”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “including a first part”.
As regards to claim 3, line 3 recites the limitation “the second part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the second part” as “and a second part”. To correct this problem, amend line 3 to recite “and a second part”.
As regards to claim 3, lines 5 & 7 recite “first and second parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “the at least first and second parts”. To correct this problem, amend lines 5 & 7 to recite “the at least first and second parts”.
As regards to claim 4, line 1 recites “first and second parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “the at least first and second parts”. To correct this problem, amend line 1 to recite “the at least first and second parts”.
As regards to claim 5, line 1-2 recites “first and second parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “the at least first and second parts”. To correct this problem, amend line 1-2 to recite “the at least first and second parts”.
As regards to claim 5, lines 3 & 3-4 recite “first and second part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “the at least first and second parts”. To correct this problem, amend lines 3 & 3-4 to recite “the at least first and second part”.
As regards to claim 5, line 4 recites “each sliding link”, however “sliding link” is not previously recited and thus unclear what “each” is referencing. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “each sliding link” as “each of the at least one sliding connection”. Applicant is invited to clarify and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 6, lines 2 & 4 recites “first and second sections”, however according to the specification ([0077]), the “first and second sections” recited in claim 6 are the “at least two elements” recited in claim 1 and thus unclear why the “first and second sections” recited in claim 6 are introduced as new elements in claim 6. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second sections” as “wherein the at least two elements comprise first and second sections”. Applicant is invited to clarify and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation “the first section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the first section” as “the at least first and second sections including a first section”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “the at least first and second sections including a first section”.
As regards to claim 7, line 3 recites the limitation “the second section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the second section” as “the at least first and second sections including a second section”. To correct this problem, amend line 3 to recite “the at least first and second sections including a second section”.
As regards to claim 7, line 3 recites “first and second parts”, however “first and second parts” are previously recited in claim 3 from which claim 7 ultimately depends, however they don’t appear to be related. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “first and second parts” as “first and second pieces”. Applicant is invited to clarify and particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation “the first section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the first section” as recited in view of interpretation of claim 7 above. To correct this problem, amend claim 7, line 2 to recite “the at least first and second sections including a first section”.
As regards to claim 8, line 2 recites the limitation “the first terminal face”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the first terminal face” as “a first terminal face”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “a first terminal face”.
As regards to claim 11, line 1 recites the limitation “the walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the walls” as “the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall”. To correct this problem, amend line 1 to recite “the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall”.
As regards to claim 11, line 5 recites the limitation “the slider”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the walls” as “the first lateral wall and the second lateral wall”. To correct this problem, amend line 5 to recite “the plurality of longitudinal sliders”.
Claims 2-11 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 3.
Claim Rejections
7. 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 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.
8. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mindock et al. (US 2019/0100332 A1) hereinafter Mindock (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Mindock are included between parentheses).
Regarding claims 1-11, examiner is interpreting the “at least two elements” recited in claim 1 as the “first and second parts” recited in claims 3-5 and “first and second sections” recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “suitable for painting a fuselage of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising wings and a tail unit, and each wing forming a given angle with the fuselage… to permit the wings of the aircraft to pass through… in which the fuselage can be positioned”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Mindock since Mindock meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being suitable for painting a fuselage of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising wings and a tail unit, and each wing forming a given angle with the fuselage and to permit the wings of the aircraft to pass through and in which the fuselage can be positioned, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Mindock discloses a painting system suitable for painting a fuselage (102) of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising wings (138) and a tail unit (fig 1), and each wing (130) forming a given angle with the fuselage (102) and the painting system comprising a platform (300) (abs; fig 1-11), comprising: a paint booth (200) which is positioned on the platform (300) and which comprises at least first and second lateral openings (left and right side openings in 274, see fig 2-3, 7-10) which are configured to permit the wings (138) of the aircraft to pass through the paint booth (200), at least two elements (202, 220, 250), at least one of the two elements (202, 220, 250) being mobile between an adjacent position (see fig 2-3, 7-11) corresponding to a closed state (see fig 2, 8-9) of the paint booth (200) in which the at least two elements (202, 220, 250) are joined together, and a spaced-apart position corresponding to an open state (see fig 3, 11) of the paint booth (200) in which the fuselage (102) can be positioned between the two elements (202, 220, 250) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “to permit the tail unit to pass through the paint booth”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Mindock since Mindock meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being suitable for permitting the tail unit to pass through the paint booth, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the paint booth (200) comprises an upper opening (see fig 2-3, 7-9, space between wigs) which is dimensioned to be capable of permitting the tail unit (fig 1) to pass through the paint booth (200) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 3, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the at least two elements (202, 220, 250) of the paint booth (200) comprise at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250) including a first part (202) comprising at least one part of a first lateral wall (274), in addition to a first portion (204) of an upper wall (204+252), and a second part (250) comprising at least one part of a second lateral wall (274), in addition to a second portion (252) of the upper wall (204+252), the first and second portions (204+252) of the upper wall (204+252) being joined together when the at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250) are in the adjacent position (see fig 2-3, 7-11), and the first and second portions (204+252) of the upper wall (204+252) comprising cutouts so as to form the upper opening (see fig 2-3, 7-9, space between wigs) when the at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250) are in the adjacent position (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 4, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250) are mobile between the adjacent and spaced-apart positions (see fig 2-3, 7-11) and symmetrical relative to a vertical median plane (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 5, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein, for each of the at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250), the painting system comprises at least one sliding connection (270+290+302) which connects the at least first and second part (202, 220, 250) and the platform (300) and which is configured to permit the at least first and second parts (202, 220, 250) to be translated between the adjacent and spaced-apart positions (see fig 2-3, 7-11), each of the at least one sliding connection (270+290+302) forming with the vertical median plane an angle which is substantially equal to that formed between the fuselage (102) and each wing (130) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 6, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the at least two elements (202, 220, 250) of the paint booth (200) comprise at least first and second sections (202, 220, 250), respectively comprising first and second terminal faces (see fig 2-3, 7-11) which are positioned in transverse planes perpendicular to the vertical median plane(see fig 2-3, 7-11), at least one of the at least first and second sections (202, 220, 250) being mobile between a first position (see fig 2-3, 7-11) in which first and second transverse faces are placed against one another (see fig 2-3, 7-11), in addition to a second position (see fig 2-3, 7-11) in which the first and second transverse faces are spaced apart from one another (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 7, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein a first section (202) of the at least first and second sections (202, 220, 250) is fixed, and a second section (220, 250) of the at least first and second sections (202, 220, 250) comprises first and second parts (220, 250) which are mobile between a position which is spaced apart from the vertical median plane (see fig 2-3, 7-11) and a position which is adjacent to the vertical median plane (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 8, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the first section (202) comprises the first and second lateral openings (left and right side openings in 274, see fig 2-3, 7-10) which open out in a region of a first terminal face (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “to fill up a space between a cockpit and the tail unit”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Mindock since Mindock meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of being suitable for filling up a space between a cockpit and the tail unit, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 9, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the paint booth (200) comprises at least one flexible barrier (288) which is capable of filling up a space between a cockpit and the tail unit (fig 1) and thus completely seal the upper opening (see fig 2-3, 7-9, space between wigs) (see fig 2-3, 7-11) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
As regards to claim 10, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the paint booth (200) comprises at least one flexible barrier (216) for at least one of the first and second lateral openings (left and right side openings in 274, see fig 2-3, 7-10), the flexible barrier being configured to fill up a space between the paint booth (200) and the wing (130) and thus completely seal the first or second lateral opening (left and right side openings in 274, see fig 2-3, 7-10).
As regards to claim 11, Mindock discloses a painting (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the paint booth (200) comprises a structure (see fig 2) which is configured to support the first lateral wall (274) and the second lateral wall (274), in addition to a plurality of longitudinal sliders (270+290+302) which are fixed to the structure (see fig 2), wherein the first lateral wall (274) and the second lateral wall (274) are parallel to one another and which are configured to permit at least one support (280) to be displaced along the fuselage (102) which is positioned in the paint booth (200) by sliding along the plurality of longitudinal sliders (270+290+302) ([0035]-[0050]; fig 1-11).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights