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 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.
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(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (USPGPub 2016/0368013).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Okada teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a source of ingredients (the source of L, Fig. 3) wherein it is reasonably implied that the container which can be even the pipe (30) shown is necessarily pressurized, especially given that the fluid is flowing back upwards in (33), wherein a nozzle in configured to receive ingredients and a valve is present between the source of the ingredients and the nozzle (51) wherein the valve is operated by a controller to control the flow of ingredients out of the nozzle [0079] wherein a predetermined pattern is determined by the shape of the nozzle provided. Further it is noted that uniform deposition (abstract) is considered to be patterned deposition applied uniformly and it Okada it is done according to “data” wherein it is noted that the invention of Okada is provided to resolve issues of poor deposition in the prior art provided due to lack of process control. Further it is noted that the cup of the current claim is not part of the invention as claimed and the use of the device to decorate a cup is a recitation of intended use wherein the Court has long held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Okada fails to teach wherein the device comprises motors or pumps as claimed. However, Okada shows a rotary drive actuator and rotary drive unit (Fig. 2) for rotating the nozzle relative to the cup. It is not stated that this device is necessarily a “motor” but the rotary drive unit appears to be what would be considered to be a motor. Further the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that motors are known means employed for the rotation of parts in machinery in general wherein they are used in robotics, heavy machinery, home appliances and a host of other devices for the stated purposes. Therefore, in an instance wherein the rotary drive unit of Okada is not presumed or implied to be a motor, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a motor to rotate the nozzle of Okada as is known in the prior art as a simple substitution of one known rotation means for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the knowledge of those in the field in general. Further as relates to a “pump” in Okada, Okada does not explicitly state that the ingredients he employs are moved through the lines with a pump or that the air that forces them out of the nozzle is provided by a pump. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that pumps are a well-known means of moving fluids including air through supply lines for nozzles but are also used in a variety of fields for the same purpose. Pumps are used to move fluids in drink dispensers, hydraulics, municipal water supply and etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump to move the ingredient containing fluids of Okada through his nozzle as is known in the prior art as a simple substitution of one known fluid moving means within supply lines for another wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the knowledge of those in the field in general. Further the supply controls and rotary drive portions and movement portions of Okada are controlled using the same air supply. While it is not stated that the controller necessarily controls all operations of the apparatus of Okada, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that the combining of control of individual subsystems within a machine so that they are all controlled by some means that may be referred to as a single controller is well known in a variety of fields. This is done in the manufacture of automobiles, vapor deposition and nuclear monitoring processes wherein one controller or processing station may control many facets of the overall operation of what may be a complicate machine or process. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Okada so as to be controlled by a single control unit as an application of a known systems combining technique applied to a known control system ready for improvement wherein the results of the combination would have been predictable based upon the general knowledge of those in the art relating to the combining of control systems into singular control systems. Further
Regarding claim 2, the moving unit of Okada (70) would read upon an actuator capable of performing the operations claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the components of Okada as cited above are air driven (50), thereby reading on the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 5, the nozzle of Okada is reasonably elongate and straight but is not shown as having a “slanted” end. However, the Court has long held that changes in shape of a prior art apparatus in the absence of a new and unexpected results arising from a newly provided shape are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art previously provided shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Okada teaches a nozzle with an opening in the end with other nozzles being provided “anywhere” [0076]. Given that the nozzle of Okada is an elongate tube, reasonably the primary implication of a nozzle exit being anywhere else would be on the side of the nozzle or tube provided which would thereby read on the current claims.
Regarding claim 8, the nozzle of Okada is reasonably elongate and straight but is not shown as having an ellipsoid shape. However, the Court has long held that changes in shape of a prior art apparatus in the absence of a new and unexpected results arising from a newly provided shape are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art previously provided shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, the axis of rotation of the nozzle of Okada is about the longitudinal axis of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Okada area shown above. Okada further teaches that the spray gun may be “moved in the horizontal direction” [0108] but Okada does not explicitly state that this movement is automated or using actuators as claimed. However, Okada otherwise moves his spray gun largely with actuators. As such, Okada teaches both a means to move the spray gun and a desire to do so. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include horizontal actuators for the movement of the spray nozzle of Okada in the invention of Okada as an application of a known movement technique to the known device of Okada ready for improvement wherein the modification of the device of Okada as described would have yielded predictable results based upon the already provided ability to move the spray gun of Okada in other directions using similar mechanisms.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (USPGPub 2016/0368013) as applied to claim 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13 above and further in view of Ballu (US5323963).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of Okada are as shown above. Okada fails to teach wherein the nozzle has a deformable end shape. However, Ballu teaches that it is known to provide deposition nozzles with deformable end sections so as to modify the “performance” of the nozzle (see Summary of Invention, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nozzle of Okada with the deformable end piece of Ballu in order to modify the performance of the nozzle of Okada as guided by Ballu.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (USPGPub 2016/0368013) as applied to claim 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13 above and further in view of Hayama et al. (USPGPub 2019/0210299).
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Okada are as shown above. Okada fails to teach wherein the nozzle rotates about any axis other than the longitudinal axis of the spray direction of the nozzle of Okada. However, Hayama teaches that it is known to rotate spray nozzles about plural axis (see Figs. 1-2)[0008] wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that this gives more freedom to the possible direction in which the spray may be directed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nozzle of Okada with the ability to rotate both around its longitudinal axis and additional axis in order to allow additional freedom in the ability to direct the direction of spray in the invention of Okada as provided by Hayama.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (USPGPub 2016/0368013) as applied to claim 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13 above and further in view of Klein II et al. (US5757498).
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Okada are as shown above. Okada fails to teach wherein a sensor is present on the end of the nozzle that measures a distance from the end of the nozzle to the surface to the coated. However, Klein II teaches that it is known to provide optical displacement sensors on spray nozzles to allow for coating thickness measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nozzle of Okada with the optical sensor of Klein II in order to allow for the determination of coating thickness in the invention of Okada as guided by Klein II. Further, it is not shown that the sensor is necessarily placed on the distal end of the nozzle. However, it is generally directed off the distal end of the nozzle and as such would serve the same function as in the current claims. Further the sensor of Klein II would seemingly function the same no matter its placement, so long as it were maintained at a set distance from the nozzle end. Further the Courts have long held that shifting the position of parts of a prior art product that would not alter the operation of the product are unpatentable in view of the prior art provided product and its parts placement. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: it is not known in the prior art to provide a cup decoration device, comprising: a nozzle coupled to receive ingredients, wherein the nozzle includes an outlet, and wherein the nozzle is configured to be positioned adjacent to or partially inside the cup, a pump coupled to drive the ingredients through the outlet of the nozzle, a motor coupled to rotate the cup relative to the nozzle and a controller operably coupled to the pump and the motor, wherein the controller is configured to operate the pump and the motor such that the nozzle dispenses the ingredients onto an inner surface of the cup via the outlet to create a layer having a predetermined pattern further comprising a housing coupled to the nozzle, a stem coupled to the housing; and a cup support coupled to the stem, the cup support comprising first and second arms positioned to circumferentially wrap around the cup, and first and second rollers coupled to the first and second arms, respectively, wherein the first and second rollers are configured to contact the cup; and a third roller positioned to contact the cup, wherein the motor is coupled to rotate the third roller to rotate the cup along the first and second rollers between the first and second arms as in claim 17 or
To provide a cup decoration device, comprising: a nozzle coupled to receive ingredients, wherein the nozzle includes an outlet, and wherein the nozzle is configured to be positioned adjacent to or partially inside the cup, a pump coupled to drive the ingredients through the outlet of the nozzle, a motor coupled to rotate the cup relative to the nozzle and a controller operably coupled to the pump and the motor, wherein the controller is configured to operate the pump and the motor such that the nozzle dispenses the ingredients onto an inner surface of the cup via the outlet to create a layer having a predetermined pattern further comprising a housing coupled to the nozzle, a stem coupled to the housing; and a cup support coupled to the stem, the cup support comprising a platform configured to support the cup and a latch coupled between the stem and the platform, wherein the motor is coupled to rotate the platform about the latch as in claim 13.
The most pertinent prior art (Okada et al. USPGPub 2016/0368013) teaches a device for coating the interior of hollow articles such as cups wherein the device comprises a spray nozzle that largely meets the limitations of the current claims. However, the device of Okada does not comprise the latch and platform tilting mechanisms or the general arm structures with rollers of the claims capable of rotating the cup as claimed.
Another prior art (Klein II et al., US5757498) teaches that it is known to use sensors in conjunction with spray nozzle to measure distances between the nozzles and spray targets but is otherwise largely unrelated to the problems solved by the current claims.
Another prior art (Ballu, US5323963) teaches that it is known to provide spray nozzles with deformable end sections for the purpose of controlling spray but is otherwise largely unrelated to the problems solved by the current application.
Another prior art (Hayama et al., USPGPub 2019/0210299) teaches that it is known to provide spray nozzles with multi-axis rotation for the purpose of providing more thorough coating angles but is otherwise largely unrelated to the problems solved by the current application.
Another prior art (Younos et al., USPGPub 2016/0074901) teaches that it is known to rotate bottles during coating of their interiors for the purpose of uniformly spreading the coating material within the bottle but is otherwise largely unrelated to the problems solved by the current application.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Okada does not read upon the current claim limitations based on the concept that the current invention uses a predetermined pattern based on data while Okada performs uniform deposition. However, it is the position of that examiner that the applicant is reading additional limitations into the concept of using a predetermined pattern and data that should not be considered as part of the current claim language and that Okada teaches both forming a coating having a predetermined pattern and he uses “data” to do this. It is noted that the phrase “uniform pattern” is found in patent literature over 70,000 times according to the examiners search of this phrase. Random deposition cannot reasonably be considered patterned deposition but the provision of a uniform coating necessarily requires coating material to be applied in specific locations to ensure uniform coverage. Further the process of Okada seems to be automated or at least not performed by hand. As such, data is what guides the control unit of Okada to rotate the spray gun, move it in a longitudinal direction, supply the proper amount of coating material, adjust the timing of the air supply, adjust the duration of the air supply and moving the cup in embodiments wherein that is an option. As such the prior art reads upon the current claim amendments. It may be that the invention of Okada does not use the same type of data or use the same predetermined pattern that is preferred by the current inventor, but reasonably Okada provides his own version of both of these facets of the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights