DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 3-9 and 11 have text and reference numbers which are difficult to read. It will be better to resubmit each figure on a separate page, with the improved clarity in text and reference numbers. It is noted the priority document have figures on a separate page with the desired quality, but is missing figure 11.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai (US 2005/0040262).
In regards to claim 1, Nagai teaches an electrostatic coating system (2) for electrostatically paint/coat a workpiece (W)
by charging the paint with a voltage output supplied from a high voltage generator (7) (fig. 1; para. 50-51, wherein a safety mechanism (high voltage safety control unit) within a controller (11), the safety mechanism monitors the voltage output and lowers the voltage output of the high voltage generator based on a detected current being above a first overcurrent threshold (fig. 1, 5-7; para. 35, 62-70), and
the first overcurrent threshold is a first dynamic threshold based on the voltage output (fig. 6-7; para. 35, 65-67).
In regards to claim 2, Nagai teaches the safety mechanism stops the output of the high voltage generator based on the detected current being above a second overcurrent threshold, and the second overcurrent threshold is a second dynamic threshold based on the voltage output (fig. 6-7; para. 65-66).
In regards to claim 3, Nagai teaches the safety mechanism comprises at least one output voltage monitor to receive a detected voltage, the first dynamic threshold comprises at least one first overcurrent range and at least one second overcurrent range, and the first overcurrent range is lower than the second overcurrent range (fig. 6-7; para. 65-67).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henger (US 4,764,393) in view of Hamilton (US 6,437,963).
In regards to claim 1, Henger teaches electrostatic installation for coating vehicle bodies, to electrostatically adsorb paint on the workpiece by charging the paint with a voltage output supplied from a high voltage generator (fig. 1-2; col 3, lines 25-40)
a voltage safety control unit monitors the voltage output and a detected current being above a first overcurrent threshold (fig. 1-2; col 4, lines 5-20, col. 4, line 65- col. 5, line 15),
if the intermediate threshold values are exceeded, the high-voltage source (H) is not shut off and signals for the operating personnel is produced (fig. 1-2; col. 4, line 65- col. 5, line 15)
the improvement comprising: the first overcurrent threshold is a first dynamic threshold based on the voltage output (fig. 1-2; col 4, lines 5-25)
Hanger does not teach the first overcurrent threshold is a first dynamic threshold based on the voltage output.
However, Hamilton teaches that the electrostatic sprayer system that lowers the voltage output of the high voltage generator based on the current being above the first overcurrent threshold (fig. 1, 10-14; col. 8, line 55- col. 9, line 5, col. 9, lines 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the process for the electrostatic sprayer system of Hamilton onto the control unit of Hanger because Hamilton teaches
In regards to claim 2, Henger and Hamilton as discussed, where prior art combination teaches electrostatic installation with the high voltage safety control unit stops the output of the high voltage generator based on the detected current being above a second overcurrent threshold, and the second overcurrent threshold is a second dynamic threshold based on the voltage output (Henger-col 4, lines 5-20, Hamilton-col. 9, line 50- col. 10, line 10).
In regards to claim 3, Henger and Hamilton as discussed, where prior art combination teaches the voltage safety control unit comprises at least one output voltage monitor to receive a detected voltage corresponding to the absolute value of the voltage output (Henger-fig. 1; col. 5, lines 35-55).
In regards to claim 4, Henger and Hamilton as discussed, where prior art combination teaches the second dynamic threshold increases as the detected voltage increases within a first voltage domain (Henger-col 4, lines 5-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights