DETAILED ACTION
1. The Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6 & 8-12 in the application remain pending. Claims 1-2, 5-6 & 8-12 were amended. Claims 3-4 & 7 were cancelled. Claims 5-6 & 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
5. The amendment filed 05/18/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the “and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked” of claim 1, lines 13-15.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Currently, the original specification recites:
[0044] …in the case where a state in which the safety door 125 is not normally locked continues despite an instruction to start the thermal spraying process, the controller 201 may notify the worker W that a problem has occurred in the safety door 125 via the display unit 209.
Claim Rejections
6. The claim rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b), of claims 1-4 & 7 are withdrawn per cancellation of claims 3-4 & 7 and amendments of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
8. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to claim 1, lines 13-15 which recites “and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked” is not supported by the original specification or claims and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 2 is rejected at least based on dependency from claim 1.
Currently, the original specification recites:
[0044] …in the case where a state in which the safety door 125 is not normally locked continues despite an instruction to start the thermal spraying process, the controller 201 may notify the worker W that a problem has occurred in the safety door 125 via the display unit 209.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. Claims 1-2 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Underhill et al. (US 2013/0298828 A1) hereinafter Underhill (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Underhill are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Underhill discloses a thermal spraying equipment (abs; fig 1-4), comprising:
a thermal spraying machine (106) including a thermal spraying torch (117) thermally spraying a material onto a base material (112) ([0013]-[0019]; fig 1-2);
a thermal spraying booth (102) where thermal spraying machine (106) is arranged ([0013]; [0015]; [0017]; fig 1-2);
one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) used with the thermal spraying machine (106) ([0012]-[0014]; [0017]-[0019]; fig 1-2 & 4);
a safety door (126) separating an inside (see fig 1) and an outside (see fig 1) of the thermal spraying booth (102) ([0012]; [0015]; [0017]; fig 1-2); and
a centralized control board (133) arranged outside (see fig 1) of the thermal spraying booth (102), the centralized control board (133) including a controller (134), the controller (134) enabling centralized operation of the thermal spraying machine (106) and the one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) ([0012]-[0014]; [0017]-[0019]; fig 1-4; clm 1-2 & 4-8),
wherein the controller (134) is configured to lock the safety door (126) so that no one enters the thermal spraying booth (102) during a thermal spraying process, and wherein the controller (134) is configured to check whether the safety door (126) is locked, and if it is not, the controller (134) is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) and the thermal spraying machine (106) from operating until the safety door (126) is locked (abs; [0011]; [0013]; [0015]-[0018]; fig 1-4; clm 1-2 & 4-8).
As regards to claim 2, Underhill discloses a thermal spraying equipment (abs; fig 1-4), wherein the one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) include at least one selected from a group including a mover (115+122+124) moving the thermal spraying torch (117) and a dust collector (146) collecting dust generated in the thermal spraying booth (102) ([0012]-[0014]; [0017]-[0019]; fig 1-2 & 4).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
(a) Applicants submit that Underhill fails to disclose now amended claim 1 reciting "the centralized control board including a controller, the controller enabling centralized operation of the thermal spraying machine and the one or more peripheral devices, wherein the controller is configured to lock the safety door so that no one enters the thermal spraying booth during a thermal spraying process, and wherein the controller is configured to check whether the safety door is locked, and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked." The Office asserted that Underhill allegedly discloses all of the features recited in independent claim 1. Underhill is directed to a safety device to protect an operator during use of a thermal spray apparatus. (see Underhill, para. [0001]). The Office, herein, asserted that a spray mechanism 106, a spray gun 117, a component 112, a booth 102, components including a robot arm 115, a switch 122, a base 124, and an exhaust 146, a door 126, and a control panel 133 discussed in Underhill correspond to the claimed "thermal spraying machine," "thermal spraying torch," "base material," "thermal spraying booth," "one or more peripheral devices," "safety door," and "centralized control board," respectively. In addition, the Office asserted that a controller 134 discussed in Underhill allegedly corresponds to the "controller." (see Office Action, pp. 7 and 8, rejection of original claims 3, 4 and 7). Underhill, however, does not disclose or suggest "the centralized control board including a controller, the controller enabling centralized operation of the thermal spraying machine and the one or more peripheral devices, wherein the controller is configured to lock the safety door so that no one enters the thermal spraying booth during a thermal spraying process, and wherein the controller is configured to check whether the safety door is locked, and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked," as recited in amended claim 1. With respect to Underhill, paragraphs [0017] and [0018] discuss that a safety interlock is a software component of the controller 134 that controls the operation of a thermal spray apparatus 100, and that, when the door 126 accessing the thermal spray apparatus 100 is open, the safety interlock switches a spray mechanism to a safe condition. However, "the safety interlock is switched to the safe condition if the door 126 is open" discussed in paragraph [0017] of Underhill is different from the claimed "controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked," as recited in amended claim 1. As described in paragraph [0016] of Underhill, "the safety interlock switches between an operating condition where the spray mechanism 106 can operate in either of the operating mode 108 (FIG. 1) or the safe mode 114 (FIG. 2); and a safe condition in which the spray mechanism 106 is prevented from operating in the operating mode 108 (FIG. 1). More specifically, when the safety interlock is switched to the safe condition, the spray mechanism 106 is required to operate in the safe mode 114 (FIG. 2)." Herein, the "safe condition" in Underhill refers to a state that prevents the spray mechanism 106 from operating in the operating mode; in other words, it is a state in which the spray mechanism 106 can still be operated in the safe mode. In summary, the spray mechanism 106 can still be operated in both the operating mode 108 and the safe mode 114. In contrast, in claim 1, as amended, if the safety door is not locked, both the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine cannot operate until the safety door is locked.
That is, neither the peripheral devices nor the thermal spraying machine can operate in any mode when the safety door is not locked. Therefore, the control for the thermal spraying machine and peripheral devices by the controller of the centralized control board in amended claim 1 differs from the control for the spray mechanism by the control panel in Underhill.
As such, Underhill does not disclose or suggest "the centralized control board including a controller, the controller enabling centralized operation of the thermal spraying machine and the one or more peripheral devices, wherein the controller is configured to lock the safety door so that no one enters the thermal spraying booth during a thermal spraying process, and wherein the controller is configured to check whether the safety door is locked, and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked," as recited in amended claim 1.
(b) For at least the foregoing reasons, Underhill fails to disclose or suggest each and every element as set forth in amended claim 1.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, recites additional features and distinguishes over Underhill for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or for the additionally recited features.
11. In response to applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments.
(a) Initially, the amendment to claim 1, lines 13-15 which recites “and if it is not, the controller is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices and the thermal spraying machine from operating until the safety door is locked” is not supported by the original specification or claims and therefore considered new matter. Currently, the original specification recites: [0044] …in the case where a state in which the safety door 125 is not normally locked continues despite an instruction to start the thermal spraying process, the controller 201 may notify the worker W that a problem has occurred in the safety door 125 via the display unit 209.
That is, the thermal spraying process will start with instruction to do so even with the safety door 125 not normally locked and just notify the worker W that a problem has occurred in the safety door 125 via the display unit 209 during the thermal spraying process.
Further, as already discussed above in detail in regards to claim 1, Underhill discloses a centralized control board (133) arranged outside (see fig 1) of the thermal spraying booth (102), the centralized control board (133) including a controller (134), the controller (134) enabling centralized operation of the thermal spraying machine (106) and the one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) ([0012]-[0014]; [0017]-[0019]; fig 1-4; clm 1-2 & 4-8), wherein the controller (134) is configured to lock the safety door (126) so that no one enters the thermal spraying booth (102) during a thermal spraying process, and wherein the controller (134) is configured to check whether the safety door (126) is locked, and if it is not, the controller (134) is configured to control to prevent the one or more peripheral devices (115, 122, 124, 146) and the thermal spraying machine (106) from operating until the safety door (126) is locked (abs; [0011]; [0013]; [0015]-[0018]; fig 1-4; clm 1-2 & 4-8).
That is, the centralized control board includes a controller ([0013]), the safety interlock may be a software component of the controller ([0018]), the safety interlock switches between an operating condition where the spray mechanism can operate in either of the operating mode or the safe mode; and a safe condition in which the spray mechanism is prevented from operating in the operating mode; when the safety interlock is switched to the safe condition, the spray mechanism is required to operate in the safe mode, the safe mode of the spray mechanism involves a deactivation of the spray mechanism ([0016]), wherein the safety interlock is configured to switch to the safe condition once an operator is enabled to enter the booth ([0017]), wherein the safety interlock prevents the spray mechanism from entering the operating mode while the operator is in the booth ([0011]).
To say another way, if the thermal spraying machine is operating the safety door is locked and if the safety interlock is switched to the safe condition allowing an operator to enter the booth, the thermal spraying machine is not operating and the safety door is unlocked.
(b) In view of the foregoing, Examiner respectfully contends the limitations of claim 1 are indeed satisfied. Claim 2 is rejected at least based on dependency from claim 1, as well as for its own rejections on the merits, respectively.
Conclusion
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
13. 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