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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite an apparatus with structural limitations and material worked upon by the apparatus. While there is nothing wrong with claiming the material worked upon, such limitations are only given weight to the extent that they limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115. See In re Rishoi (94 USPQ 71), In re Smith (3 USPQ 315), and In re Young (25 USPQ 69).
In Rishoi, a film of liquid was claimed as part of an apparatus, it being clear that the liquid film is only present during use of the apparatus. It was held that the liquid film is not a structural limitation and therefore cannot impart patentability to those claims which are otherwise unpatentable. It was further stated that there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works.
In Smith, a particular web material having an extra length of carbons was claimed as part of an apparatus. The web material is worked upon by the apparatus. The court considered the possibility of combining the specified web with an old machine to provide a patentable combination, but it was held that a person may not patent a combination of a device and material upon which the device works, nor limit other persons from the use of similar material by claiming a device patent.
In Young, a concrete structure upon which an apparatus works was claimed as part of the apparatus. It was held that the inclusion of the material worked upon may not lend patentability to the apparatus.
In view of the cited cases and MPEP 2115, the claimed material worked upon has only been given weight to the extent that such limitations indicate structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wieland et al. (US).
As to claim 1 , Weiland discloses a coating apparatus, comprising: a coating booth 100 configured to coat with a coating material a coating target being conveyed, the coating booth having an opening 140 disposed in a portion of a lower face of the coating booth and configured to discharge air containing coating material mist, wherein the portion is central in a width direction of the coating booth, the width direction is horizontally orthogonal to a direction in which the coating target is conveyed (fig 1, 4, 11, 15, associated text, para 75-125, 138-157); at least one remover device 146/150/158/160 (para 138-157) disposed below the coating booth and within an area of the coating booth in the width direction and configured to receive from the coating booth the air containing the coating material mist and remove the coating material mist; and a first connection path (see annotated fig, can read on 188 and AND/OR path between bottom end of 190 and 178/180) connecting the opening to the at least one remover device, and wherein the at least one remover device comprising an air introducing port (see annotated fig below) also is disposed outward of the opening in the width direction, is connected to the first connection path, and is configured to receive from the first connection path the air containing the coating material mist (figs 1-5, 11, 15, discussion of first and third embodiments, annotated fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Wieland the coating apparatus causes the air to flow inward from outward in the width direction in the at least one remover device (figs 1-5, 11, 15, discussion of first and third embodiments).
As to claim 3, Weiland discloses the at least one remover device comprises an air discharge port (at upper face a shown in annotated fig) disposed on an upper face of the at least one remover device and configured to discharge the air from which coating material mist has been removed, and the coating apparatus further comprising: a gas discharge fan 164 configured to discharge (fig 1, 4, 5, para 114), from the coating apparatus, air discharged from the air discharge port; a second connection path (air duct in 160, fig 5) connecting the air discharge port to the gas discharge fan; and a partition wall (any of 190, 130, or wall around duct 160) separating the first connection path from the second connection path (annotated figs, figs 1-5, 11, 15, para 75-125, 138-157, specifically, 87-90).
As to claim 4, Wieland discloses the partition wall comprises an airflow guide configured to guide 190, outward in the width direction, the air containing the coating material mist which air has been discharged from the opening (air flows outward at bottom end of 190 between 190 and 776, see annotated fig 15).
As to claim 11, Wieland discloses the first connection path comprises, between an area on a side of the opening and an area on a side of the air introducing port, an area with a cross-sectional area different from a cross-sectional area of at least either the area on the side of the opening or the area on the side of the air introducing port (annotated figs, figs 1-5, 11, 15, para 75-125, 138-157).
As to claim 12, Wieland discloses the at least one remover device comprises a plurality of remover devices arranged in the conveyance direction (see fig 2-5, multiples of 146/150/158 shown), and wherein the first connection path connects the opening to the respective air introducing ports of the plurality of remover devices (see fig 2-5, 15-20 multiples of 146/150/158 shown).
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.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekigawa (US 2018/0221905).
As to claim 5, Wieland does not expressly disclose the air introducing port on an upper face of the at least one remover device. Sekigawa discloses a coating apparatus 1 (fig 1), wherein an air introducing port 17 is located on an upper face of a remover device 16 (fig -3, para 190-212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wieland such that the at least one remover device comprises an air introducing port on an upper face of the at least one remover device as taught by Sekigawa as such enables efficient collection of coating material. Additionally, the location of the introducing port is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as rearranging of parts is obvious absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant. MPEP 2114.04.
As to claim 6, Sekigawa discloses the at least one remover device comprises an air discharge port disposed on a lower face of the at least one remover device or on a side face of the at least one remover device (see discharge ports located on right side of 16, bottom of fig 3) in the width direction and configured to discharge the air from which coating material mist has been removed (Sekigawa, fig 3, associated text).
Wieland discloses the coating apparatus further comprising: a gas discharge fan configured to discharge, from the coating apparatus, air discharged from the air discharge port; and a second connection path connecting the air discharge port to the gas discharge fan (see rejection of claim 3 above)
As to claim 7, Wieland discloses an airflow guide configured to guide, outward in the width direction, the air containing the coating material mist which air has been discharged from the opening (see rejection of claim 4 above)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roeckle (US 20150375251).
Wieland discloses the removal device comprising a filter element 154/146 (para 102-105), but stops short of disclosing cardboard material for the filter
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the filter element of Wieland to comprise cardboard as taught by Roeckle (para 46) as such is a wet-strength material and has reasonable expectait5on of sources (para 46).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poboss et al. (US 20220134371).
As to claim 9, Poboss discloses a coating apparatus wherein the at least one remover device 40 is movable in the width direction between an operating position and a non-operating position in an area of the coating booth (see fig 1, devices 40 can be moved from operating position attached to device to non-operating position by trolly 58, ,para 47-67), wherein when the at least one remover device moves to the operating position, the air introducing port is connected to the first connection path, and wherein when the at least one remover device moves to the non-operating position, the air introducing port is apart from the first connection path (fig 1, para 47-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wieland such that the at least one remover device is movable in the width direction between an operating position and a non-operating position in an area of the coating booth wherein when the at least one remover device moves to the operating position, the air introducing port is connected to the first connection path, and wherein when the at least one remover device moves to the non-operating position, the air introducing port is apart from the first connection path as taught by Poboss above as such enables efficient/easy filter replacement (para 53-59)
As to claim 10, Poboss discloses the operating position and the non-operating position are opposite to each other across an imaginary center line of the coating booth in the width direction (fig 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights