DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Instant claims are directed to a device for automating the spraying of a parting agent. Regarding the claimed limitation of “at least one mold having an inner surface corresponding to the shape of a part included in a car seat”, the instant device is directed to spraying mold releasing (parting) agent in a mold. The mold itself is not part of the device but rather an article worked upon by the device. Regarding “a parting agent”, this is also a material worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded that material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims (see MPEP 2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 200301686, hereinafter Jung, English Machine Translation relied upon for citation) in view of Wang (CN 204367274U, hereinafter Wang, English Machine Translation relied upon for citation).
Per independent claim 1:
Jung discloses a device for automating the spraying of a parting agent (mold release agent application device ([0001] and controller 26 which automates the process [0040]-[0051]), the device comprising:
at least one mold having an inner surface corresponding to the shape of a part included in a car seat ([0014]);
a table in which the at least one mold is installed (a conveyor which circulates a mold through a booth box [0025] and a mounting base for holding the mold ([0027]);
a spray part spraying the parting agent onto the inner surface of the at least one mold ([0029] and [0036]; Fig. 2 and 4 shows spray part mounting base 11 which supports a telescoping arm and spray nozzles); and
a controller controlling the at least one molding, the table and the spray part ([0040]-[0051]).
Although Jung discloses the use of a conveyor which circulates molds through a booth box with a mounting base inside for holding the mold (see above), it fails to teach the use of a turn table which rotates the at least one mold into and out of the spraying station.
Wang discloses a rotating disc type polyurethane foaming producing device (see title) which comprises a turntable (page 1, line 60 to page 2, line 2) with a plurality of spray stations including a release agent station 6 (page 3, line 14) which sprays release agent into a mold (page 3, lines 22-27). The turntable allows for a mold to be rotated around a plurality of application stations in order to form the final foamed polyurethane product (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have substituted the conveyor system of Jung with a rotatable turn table for moving the mold into and out of the spray booth in the manner taught by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so because Wang discloses that a turn table is known in the art for use in forming molded products by allowing the mold to be rotated through various stations. Therefore, there’s predictable and reasonable expectation of success to use the turn table with the molding process of Jung.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 200301686, hereinafter Jung, English Machine Translation relied upon for citation) in view of Wang (CN 204367274U, hereinafter Wang, English Machine Translation relied upon for citation) and further in view of Hegeman et al. (US 2023/0372966, hereinafter Hegeman).
Per claim 2, Jung further discloses the use of a manipulator including at least one join to be operated by rotation of the turntable and a spray nozzle installed on an end of the manipulator to spray the parting agent (see Fig. 2 and 4 which shows manipulator 13 and nozzles 16 connected at the end, also see [0027]). Further Jung discloses the use of a limit switch (sensors 29 and 30) which detects when to start the spray and when to stop the spray operation ([0028]-[0031]).
Jung does not specifically disclose that the limit switch (sensors) are installed on the manipulator. In other words, Jung relies on pre-positioned sensors that correspond to the shape of the mold in order to detect when to start and stop the spray operation. Therefore, Jung/Wang do not teach the use of a limit switch installed on a side of the manipulator to detect a position of the at least one mold, and beginning of the spray operation according to the position of the mold as detected by the limit switch.
Hegeman discloses a system for autonomously spraying paint to a target surface (see title and abstract). The autonomous system uses optical and depth sensors which are arranged on the end effector and moves with a set of spray nozzles ([0047]; [0034] discloses the end effector as a manipulator which controls the spray nozzles). The optical and depth sensors can create 3D images ([0043]) and work together to form a visual representation of a paint map of the object to be painted ([0130]-[0133]). The system further allows for an annotated depth map which indicates target zone and keepout zone which indicates which part to paint and which part to avoid ([0058], [0100]-[0101]). The computer can use the optical sensor to create a toolpath and raster pattern for the spray nozzles ([0058]-[0059]), and based on the object to be painted, the computer can further retrieve paint specifications based on the object to be painted the distance of the nozzle from the object, calculate the spray area, set or calculate a target paint flow rate, raster speed of the nozzle and so forth ([0073]-[0074]).
Essentially, Hegeman discloses a spray application which utilizes image and depth sensors to scan and detect an object to be painted, calculate the specific target areas that need to be painted and avoided, and automate the painting process by using the scanned object geometry to determine a toolpath for the spray nozzle, the distance the nozzle needs to be from the object and the amount of paint that is sprayed in order to efficiently coat the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the autonomous spray system of Hegeman by utilizing the various image and depth sensors installed on the sprayer, and computer system for scanning the object to be sprayed, determining the toolpath, and calculating the spray parameters into the spray process of Jung/Wang (thereby replacing the existing sensor system in Jung). One would have been motivated to do so because Hegeman’s automated system provides the benefit of being able to apply coating to any kind of object (using sensors to scan and define toolpath) in any desired zones on the object. This would improve the device of Jung/Wang as the existing sensors of Jung need to be positioned to be exactly the shape of the mold, whereas Hegeman’s system would allow mold of any shape to be sprayed with high accuracy and efficiency.
Although Hegeman’s spray system is not specifically related to release agents for molds, it is pertinent to the particular problem to which applicant is concerned with which is how to uniformly or apply a spray composition to a specific surface.
Per claim 3, see rejection of claim 2. Regarding the nozzle moving in a zigzag fashion along the inner surface of the mold, this is an intended use limitation. In addition, Wang’s spray station uses a robotic arm (Fig. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to have substituted the manipulator of Jung/Wang/Hegeman with the robotic arm of Wang such that the nozzles can be attached to the end of the robotic arm. One would have been motivated to do so because Wang discloses that such a manipulator is known for mounting a spray nozzle for spraying release agents into molds, thus yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. The robotic arm of Jung/Wang would be fully capable of being moved in a zigzag fashion.
Per claims 4-5, and 9-10, the instant claims essentially combines a vision sensor to photograph and capture the image of a mold and then a distance measurement sensor to measure a distance of the nozzle (and therefore the corresponding vision sensor as it is mounted to the nozzle) to fuse and create a 3D image that combines a 2D vision image with additional depth (i.e. fusion image in claim 10). As explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, these features are achieved by Hegeman’s autonomous spray system.
Per claim 6, this is directed to intended use of the controller. Jung/Wang/Hegeman disclose the same controller (computer system for automating the spray) and is therefore fully capable of being programmed to carry out the claimed intended use.
Per claim 7, Jung further discloses that a tag 23 for recording the type of mold fixed to the carriage and a reader 24 can be used to read the tag 23 which allows the reader 24 to output a signal to the controller 26 so that the nozzles can be controlled according to the specific mold ([0023], [0041], and [0046]). Fig. 2 shows that the reader 24 is attached to the spray part 11.
Although Jung does not teach that the tag is RFID tag, examiner takes Official Notice that RFIDs are well known tags that can be read for identifying information. It would have been obvious to have used a known tag such as RFID as the tag in Jung/Wang/Hegeman with predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Jung/Wang/Hegeman disclose the same controller (computer system for automating the spray) and image sensor as instantly claimed. Therefore it is fully capable of carrying out the intended use limitations here regarding the controller of comparing the RFID tag spray nozzle path with the mold recognized by the vision sensor in order to identify distortions and correct the set moving path to adjust for the degree of distortion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO SI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5343. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights