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 .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claim 10 is withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FRANCE on 07/24/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the French Application No. FR2307938 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s not in the form of a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for the abstract:
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
In claim 1 line 15, the clause “during suction, when solvent is sucked in by the metering pump” should be deleted because it’s redundant and confusing.
Claim 1 at lines 6 to 9 should be amended to establish a clearer relationship between the noun “configuration” and the verb “prevents”/ “permits.” As a suggestion:
. . . each of the gas and solvent valves having at least one closed configuration[[,]] that prevents the passage of gas or solvent, respectively, to the inlet, and at least one open configuration[[,]] that permits the passage of gas or solvent, respectively, to the inlet, . . .
In Claim 1 at line 16, “solvent sucked in” should be changed to “sucked solvent” for consistency with line 19, which recites “sucked gas” (instead of “gas sucked in”).
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 1-9 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the valve” at line 7. It’s unclear which valve—e.g., the gas valve or the solvent valve—is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the valve” at line 8. It’s unclear which valve—e.g., the gas valve or the solvent valve—is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the passage” at line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the passage” at line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “at least one closed configuration” at line 6, but subsequently recites “the closed configuration” at lines 17-18. To the extent that there are multiple closed configurations, it’s unclear which particular closed configuration is considered “the” closed configuration. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “at least one closed configuration” at line 6, but subsequently recites “the closed configuration” at lines 20-21. To the extent that there are multiple closed configurations, it’s unclear which particular closed configuration is considered “the” closed configuration. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “at least one open configuration” at lines 7-8, but subsequently recites “the open configuration” at line 11. To the extent that there are multiple open configurations, it’s unclear which particular open configuration is considered “the” open configuration. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “at least one open configuration” at lines 7-8, but subsequently recites “the open configuration” at line 18. To the extent that there are multiple open configurations, it’s unclear which particular open configuration is considered “the” open configuration. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “at least one open configuration” at lines 7-8, but subsequently recites “the open configuration” at line 21. To the extent that there are multiple open configurations, it’s unclear which particular open configuration is considered “the” open configuration. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “at least one step of suction” at line 9 and “at least one suction phase” at line 10. The scope of “step” and the scope of “phase” are unclear. Also, the distinction between “step” and “phase” is unclear. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the suction” at line 14. It’s unclear if this is referring back to “at least one step of suction” recited in line 9 or “at least one suction phase” recited in line 10. It’s also unclear which of the “at least one” suction step or which of the “at least one” suction phase is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “the desired quantity” at line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the desired quantity” at line 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the suction” at line 1. It’s unclear if this is referring back to “at least one step of suction” recited in claim 1 line 9 or “at least one suction phase” recited in claim 1 line 10. It’s also unclear which of the “at least one” suction step or which of the “at least one” suction phase is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites “the suction phase” at line 3 but previously recites “at least one suction phase” in Claim 1. To the extent that there are multiple suction phases, it’s unclear which particular suction phase is considered “the” suction phase. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the suction” at line 2. It’s unclear if this is referring back to “at least one step of suction” recited in claim 1 line 9 or “at least one suction phase” recited in claim 1 line 10. It’s also unclear which of the “at least one” suction step or which of the “at least one” suction phase is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the displacement” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the respective component product” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “upstream of the gas valve” at line 3. It’s unclear which structure —e.g., channel, compressor, gas, inlet, pump—is upstream of the gas valve. Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FEHR et al. (US PGPUB 20180154388), in view of AKAO et al. (WIPO Publication WO2005075107A1, as translated by Espacenet) and TURCZAK et al. (US PGPUB 20190091713).
Regarding claim 1, FEHR teaches a method (method 400, see Fig. 8, ¶¶ 0037-38) for rinsing a coating product application device (spray system 10’ in Figs. 6-8).
FEHR teaches both a spray system 10’ (see Figs. 6-8) and a spray system 10 (see Figs. 1-5), and the two spray systems are substantially similar (see ¶ 0036), which means certain descriptions of system 10 may be readily applied to system 10’. Likewise, FEHR teaches both a rinsing method 400 (see Fig. 8) and a rinsing method 200 (see Fig. 3), and the two methods are substantially similar (see ¶ 0037), which means certain descriptions of method 200 may be readily applied to method 400.
FEHR teaches the coating product application device (e.g., spray system 10’ in Figs. 6-8) comprises a metering device (pump 12, see Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0036) and a coating product applicator (e.g., sprayer 28/30, see Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0020).
FEHR teaches the metering device comprising a metering pump (pump 12) having an inlet (see letter “I” in Fig. 7) and an outlet (see letter “O” in Fig. 7), the inlet being connected to a gas supply channel (see line “Ac” in Fig. 7) and a solvent supply channel (see line “S” in Fig. 7), the outlet (outlet “O”) being connected to the coating product applicator (see Fig. 7, outlet “O” is connected to sprayers 28, 30), the gas supply channel (line “Ac”) being provided with a gas valve (valve 115), the solvent supply channel (line “S”) being provided with a solvent valve (valve 114).
FEHR teaches each of the gas and solvent valves (valves 114, 115) having a closed configuration in which the valve prevents the passage of gas or solvent, respectively, to the inlet (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0037-38), and an open configuration in which the valve permits the passage of gas or solvent, respectively, to the inlet (see Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0037-38).
FEHR teaches the method comprising at least one step of suction by the metering pump of a volume during at least one suction phase of the metering pump (see ¶¶ 0037-38, Fig. 8), the gas valve (valve 115) and the solvent valve (valve 114) being alternately in the open configuration during the at least one suction phase, so that the volume sucked in during the at least one suction phase comprises alternately gas and solvent (see ¶¶ 0038, 0047, 0056, air and solvent are alternatingly introduced into the pump).
FEHR teaches a control module (controller 40) configured to send instructions (control signals) to the valves to open/close them (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0031, 0037-38), including gas valve 115 and solvent valve 114 (see ¶¶ 0037-38). FEHR also teaches that the control module (controller 40) commands gas valve 115 and solvent valve 114 to alternatingly introduce air and solvent into the pump, for several cycles (see ¶ 0038, Fig. 8). These disclosures teach or at least reasonably suggest that the control module (controller 40) sends an instruction to the solvent valve 114 to switch to the closed configuration, then sends an instruction to the gas valve 115 to switch to the open configuration, then the control module sends an instruction to the gas valve 115 to switch to the closed configuration, then sends an instruction to the solvent valve 114 to switch to the open configuration, and so on.
FEHR teaches or at least reasonably suggests that the volume of solvent and the volume of gas being suctioned by the metering pump are known or predetermined. First, FEHR teaches that it’s possible to determine or detect various parameters, such as “fluid volume sprayed” (see ¶ 0024) and “target ratios and/or pressures for particular materials” (see id.). Second, FEHR teaches that, when supplying the gas and the solvent alternately, the solvent valve is opened for a “first length of time” and the gas valve is opened for a “second length of time” (see ¶¶ 0047, 0056, claims 5, 13; see also ¶ 0038, each valve is opened at “defined intervals”).
FEHR teaches that its invention may be modified (see ¶ 0059).
FEHR does not explicitly teach:
the method comprises “a detection” of the abovementioned volume sucked in by the metering pump 12;
the control module 40 sends the instruction to the solvent valve 114 to switch to the closed configuration “when the quantity of solvent sucked in monitored by a monitoring module reaches the desired quantity”;
the control module 40 sends the instruction to the gas valve 115 to switch to the closed configuration “when the quantity of sucked gas monitored by the monitoring module reaches the desired quantity.”
AKAO et al. (WIPO Publication WO2005075107A1, as translated by Espacenet) teaches supplying a gas and a solvent alternately (see ¶¶ 0023, 0030, 0034, 0045) to rinse a coating product application device (coating device 100, see Figs. 1-3), wherein the gas and the solvent need to be supplied in a desired/target ratio (see ¶¶ 0023, 0041-42, 0046-48) in order to optimize the cleaning effect (see ¶ 0041). AKAO teaches that the desired/target ratio depends on, inter alia, the viscosity of the solvent (see ¶¶ 0042, 0047). TURCZAK teaches using a monitoring module (see ¶¶ 0018, 0038) to detect a volume sucked in by a metering pump, in order to achieve a desired/target ratio of various materials (see id.). By detecting the actual volume, the desired/target ratio may be achieved while also adapting to the viscosity of the materials (see ¶ 0018).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify FEHR to incorporate using a monitoring module to detect the actual volume sucked in by the metering pump 12, and controlling the valves 114 and 115 to supply the desired quantities of gas and solvent based on the actual volume detected by the monitoring module, with reasonable expectation of optimizing the cleaning effect. FEHR already teaches or reasonably suggests that, when supplying the gas and the solvent alternately, the gas and the solvent are supplied in predetermined quantities. AKAO teaches that, when supplying a gas and a solvent alternately to clean a coating device, they need to be supplied in a particular ratio—the ratio depends on, inter alia, the viscosity of the solvent—in order to optimize the cleaning effect. TURCZAK teaches using a monitoring module to detect the actual volume sucked in by a pump in order to achieve a desired/target ratio while also taking into account the viscosity of the materials. Therefore, given the benefits of optimizing the cleaning effect while also adapting to the viscosity of the solvent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify FEHR to use a monitoring module to detect the actual volume sucked in by FEHR’s metering pump 12, and control FEHR’s valves 114 and 115 to supply the desired quantities of gas and solvent based on the actual volume detected by the monitoring module.
In the resulting combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK: a monitoring module would be used to perform “detection” of the actual volume sucked in by FEHR’s metering pump 12; when the quantity of sucked-in solvent—as monitored by the monitoring module—reaches the desired quantity, FEHR’s control module 40 would send instruction to FEHR’s solvent valve 114 to switch to the closed configuration; and when the quantity of sucked-in gas—as monitored by the monitoring module—reaches the desired quantity, FEHR’s control module 40 would send instruction to FEHR’s gas valve 115 to switch to the closed configuration.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the at least one suction step comprises, in the following order, the following steps: opening FEHR’s solvent valve 114, suction of solvent by FEHR’s metering pump 12 for a first volume, closing of the solvent valve 114, opening FEHR’s gas valve 115 (which is different from solvent valve 114), suction of gas by FEHR’s metering pump 12 for a second volume, and closing of the gas valve 115. As explained above, the combination teaches said preceding steps being repeated throughout at least one suction phase (see ¶ 0038, Fig. 8 of FEHR).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches wherein the suction comprises a suction cycle comprising a suction of gas and a suction of solvent by FEHR’s metering pump 12, said suction cycle being repeated throughout the suction phase (see ¶ 0038, Fig. 8 of FEHR).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the volume sucked in during the suction by the metering pump (as explained above) is detected by a sensor for the sucked-in volume or a sensor for the displacement of the metering pump (see TURCZAK at ¶¶ 0015, 0023).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the metering device further comprises two supply channels (e.g., lines F1 and F2 of FEHR) of the respective component product (see FEHR at Figs. 2A-2B, 7, ¶¶ 0019, 0028).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the metering pump is a piston pump (see FEHR at Figs. 2A-2B, 7, ¶¶ 0022-23, 0027, 0029, 0033).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the metering device comprises a mixer (outlet manifold 16 of FEHR) downstream of the outlet of the metering pump (see FEHR at Figs. 2A-2B, 7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 8. The combination teaches wherein the mixer (outlet manifold 16 of FEHR) is arranged adjacent to the outlet of the metering pump (see FEHR at Figs. 2A-2B, 7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of PLUMMER et al. (US Patent 5322571).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK teaches the method of claim 1. The combination also teaches that:
the gas supply channel (channel “Ac” of FEHR) is provided with a compressed air source (source 27 of FEHR, see FEHR at Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0036-37), the compressed air source being suitable for supplying the gas to the inlet of the metering pump 12 (see FEHR at Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0036-37) upstream of the gas valve 115 (see FEHR at Fig. 7);
the solvent supply channel (channel “S” of FEHR) being provided with a solvent source (source 26 of FEHR, see FEHR at Fig. 7, ¶ 0037), the solvent source being suitable for supplying the solvent to the inlet of the metering pump 12 (see FEHR at Fig. 7, ¶ 0037) and the solvent source being arranged upstream of the solvent valve 114 (see FEHR at Fig. 7).
The combination does not explicitly teach that: the compressed air source 27 of FEHR comprises a compressor suitable for compressing the gas to the inlet of the metering pump 12; the solvent source 26 of FEHR comprises a secondary solvent pump suitable for pumping solvent to the inlet of the metering pump 12.
But these features are already known in the prior art. For example, PLUMMER teaches that a coating product application device is rinsed using a solvent supplied from a solvent source 20/22 and using air supplied from a compressed air source 30 (see abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 42-57), wherein the solvent source 20/22 comprises a solvent tank and a solvent pump (see col. 2 lines 54-57) and the compressed air source 30 comprises a compressor (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of FEHR, AKAO, and TURCZAK such that the solvent source (i.e., source 26 of FEHR) comprises a solvent pump and the compressed air source (i.e., source 27 of FEHR) comprises a compressor, with reasonable expectation of supplying solvent and air to the coating product application device. It’s already known in the art to rinse a coating product application device with solvent supplied from a solvent source (see FEHR; see PLUMMER) and with air supplied from a compressed air source (see FEHR; see PLUMMER), wherein the solvent source comprises a solvent pump and the compressed air source comprises a compressor (see PLUMMER). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The solvent pump and the compressor, as incorporated, would still perform the same functions as before (e.g., pumping solvent, compressing air), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of FEHR, AKAO, TURCZAK, and PLUMMER: FEHR’s compressed air source 27 would comprise a compressor, which would be suitable for compressing the gas to the inlet of FEHR’s metering pump 12, wherein the compressor would be arranged upstream of FEHR’s gas valve 115 (see Fig. 7 of FEHR); FEHR’s solvent source 26 would comprise a solvent pump (i.e., the recited “secondary solvent pump”), which would be suitable for pumping solvent to the inlet of FEHR’s metering pump 12, wherein the solvent pump would be arranged upstream of FEHR’s solvent valve 114 (see Fig. 7 of FEHR).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve
ROSEN (US Patent 6116261) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 2 lines 1-7).
DIANA (US Patent 5102046) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve (valves MV6 and MV7) so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 5 lines 34-43).
DIANA (US Patent 4932589) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve (valves U and GG) so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 14 lines 31-44).
DIANA (US Patent 5647542) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve (valves DD and B2) so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 14 lines 37-47).
CAREY et al. (US Patent 5389149) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 3 lines 48-60).
KATSUYAMA et al. (US Patent 4915599) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve (valves CVS and CVA) so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 6 lines 8-14).
MATSUMURA et al. (US Patent 4728034) teaches alternately opening a gas valve and a solvent valve (valves HE3 and HS3) so as to alternately supply a gas and a solvent to clean a coating product application device (see col. 5 lines 25-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714