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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
It is noted that applicant is claiming foreign priority to GB2205018.1. However, the copy provided to the application file appears to be untranslated and/or unreadable, and whereby, the priority is not perfected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Locomotion arrangement in claims 1 and 10.
Deposition arrangement in claims 1 and 11.
Magnetic attachment means in claim 6.
Regarding locomotion arrangement, it is noted in the specification only twice in the first part of the specification but with no further details. Further, there is teaching of ground wheel arrangement 24, which are wheels 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d, see page 7. For examination expediency purposes, it is assumed that the locomotion arrangement corresponds to the ground wheel arrangement. However, it is unsure if applicants intended to have locomotion arrangement be directed to these element.
Regarding deposition arrangement, it is noted in the specification three times in the first part of the specification but with no further details. Further, there is teaching of print head accessory 100, see page 7. For examination expediency purposes, it is assumed that the deposition arrangement corresponds to the print head accessory. However, it is unsure if applicants intended to have deposition arrangement be directed to these element.
Regarding magnetic attachment means, it is noted that in the specification there is teaching of the magnetic attachment means particularly as being magnetic ‘hot shoe’ connection 115a on page 7, lines 16-26; and magnetic ‘hot shoe’ connection 105a on page 9, lines 17-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the ‘locomotion arrangement’ is indefinite as it is unclear as the applicants fail to particularly point out as to the structure that the applicants intend for this element. It is unclear as to which the structure is defined in the specification for the locomotion arrangement.
In claim 1, the ‘deposition arrangement’ is indefinite as it is unclear as the applicants fail to particularly point out as to the structure that the applicants intend for this element. It is unclear as to which the structure is defined in the specification for the deposition arrangement.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the magnetic attachment means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 6 provides teaching of a magnetic attachment means. However, claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 instead of claim 6.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MCMURTRY (US 2005/0055142 A1).
See in MCMURTRY, [0008, 0009, 0036-0040]; Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6.
Re 1, MCMURTRY teaches of a detachable ([0008, 0014]) deposition accessory (dispensing device 5, mowing device 8, support 9, rail 18) for coupling to an autonomous deposition apparatus (autonomous ground maintenance vehicle, see mower marker vehicle 4 [0032]), the detachable deposition accessory comprising:
a locomotion arrangement (see wheels on 8 in Fig. 2 or Alternatively as explained in [0009] of "a ground engaging wheel or roller may be used to dispense the fluid or powder onto the ground surface" with dispensing device 5);
a deposition arrangement (13 or the wheel/roller 31 from [0009] and Fig. 4);
a control unit ([0038-0040]: “controlled by a computer”), the control unit operable to receive at least one deposition instruction ([0038]: “position of the nozzle 13 on the rail 18 is controlled by a computer”) from the autonomous deposition apparatus (guidance means 3A determine how the computer steers the deposition to create an image as explained in [0040]); and
a coupling (arm assembly 11, 12, 14 or fixing brackets 19a, 19b, and attached to the chassis 10) capable of attaching the detachable deposition accessory (5, 8, 9, 18) to an autonomous deposition apparatus (4).
See teaching in [008] of “The different types of maintenance equipment may be permanently fixed to the vehicle, detachable or interchangeable.” (emphasis bolded) and which encompasses the teaching of the detachable deposition accessory.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the coupling further comprises a data connection, wherein the data connection is operable to send data between the detachable deposition accessory and the autonomous deposition apparatus.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0038] where the position of the nozzles 13 on rail 18 is determined by the computer using positioning means 3 to create an image, see in [0039].
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the coupling further comprises a power connection, wherein the power connection is operable to send electrical power between the detachable deposition accessory and the autonomous deposition apparatus.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0038] where the position of the nozzles 13 move on rail 18 which implies a driving system and a power connection with the apparatus since the apparatus operates on its own power as stated in [0035].
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein the coupling further comprises at least one conduit, wherein the at least one conduit is capable of transferring deposition material between the detachable deposition accessory and the autonomous deposition apparatus.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0036] where the position of the nozzles 13, 20, 21, 32, 33 are connected through tubes 16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 to the deposition material container 15, see Figs. 3-8.
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein the control unit operable to send data from the detachable deposition accessory to the autonomous deposition apparatus.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0038] where the position of the nozzles 13 on rail 18 as it is controlled by a computer, and to form a an image [0039], whereby it is known to the computer to allow for creating the image.
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein the detachable deposition accessory further comprises a chassis with a nozzle array on a traverse guide.
MCMURTRY teaches in Fig. 6, and [0039] with chassis 18, nozzle array 13,20,21 fixed together on plate 17, and also in Fig. 7, see array of nozzles 13, 32, 33.
Re 9 (upon 8), wherein the traverse guide permits movement of the nozzle array beyond the width of the ground wheel arrangement of the autonomous deposition apparatus.
MCMURTRY teaches in Fig. 6 where 18 is wider then the distance between 6b and 6c, and see also Figs. 7 and 8 of the nozzle array that are wider than the wheels.
Re 10, MCMURTRY teaches of an autonomous deposition apparatus (see teaching of autonomous ground maintenance vehicle, see [0006]), the autonomous deposition apparatus comprising:
at least one receptacle to hold a deposition material (see material metering/dispensing 15);
a locomotion arrangement (see including teaching of wheels and movement, 6a-6d, 31, wheels 8);
a control unit, the control unit operable to receive the at least one deposition instruction (see teaching of computer and control unit 3a and [0007] of the use of computer interface with means a deposition instruction is entered in the computer); and
a coupling capable of attaching to the detachable deposition accessory (a coupling is implicit from [0008] and the detachable feature can be seen via brackets 19a, 19b, and arm11) according to claim 1 (see teaching by MCMURTRY in claim 1 above).
Re 11 (upon 10), further comprising a deposition arrangement.
See teaching by MCMURTRY which would deposit of the materials which encompasses the claimed deposition arrangement.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCMURTRY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEI (US 2017/0349007 A1).
Re 6 (upon 1), wherein the coupling further comprises magnetic attachment means.
MCMURTRY already teaches of the detachable feature, see in [0008], and can be via an attachment or trailer mounted device, see [0014, 0015].
Whereupon, a detachable connection means are known in the art, and in the teaching of vehicle arts of attach/detaching of devices that includes the use of operative connection to the vehicle by bolt, screw, nut, bracket, hook, weld, magnet, and adhesive, see [0003-0004]. Whereupon, the use of magnet as a detachable coupling is known in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the coupling of MCMURTRY with alternate known coupling types as taught by WEI, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCMURTRY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEI (US 2017/0349007 A1) and WOOLFORD (US 2013/0168514 A1).
Re 7 (upon 1), wherein the magnetic attachment means is a hot shoe arrangement.
MCMURTRY already teaches of the detachable feature, see in [0008], and can be via an attachment or trailer mounted device, see [0014, 0015]. However, MCMURTRY does not teach of a hot shoe arrangement for a magnetic attachment means.
Whereupon, a detachable connection means are known in the art, and in the teaching of vehicle arts of attach/detaching of devices that includes the use of operative connection to the vehicle by bolt, screw, nut, bracket, hook, weld, magnet, and adhesive, see [0003-0004]. Whereupon, the use of magnet as a detachable coupling is known in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modify the coupling of MCMURTRY with alternate known coupling types as taught by WEI, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Further, in regards to the use of a hot shoe arrangement, this is known type of magnetic connection. In the teaching by the WOOLFORD reference, there is the use of an attachment, specifically of various specific mounting types including a bolt, a quick release plate, Velcro, a snap fit arrangement, and more specifically, magnet and hot shoe.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the coupling of the modified MCMURTRY with further alternate known coupling types as taught by WOOLFORD, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCMURTRY as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of SORENSEN (WO 2017/063652 A1, see IDS).
Re 12 (upon 10), the method comprising:
an operator coupling the detachable deposition accessory to the autonomous deposition machine;
receiving the at least one deposition instruction from a user;
the autonomous deposition apparatus controlling the detachable deposition accessory to deposit material according to the at least one deposition instruction.
MCMURTRY discloses the features as seen for claim 1 above. See teaching in MCMURTRY of the instructions to the dispensing apparatus, see [0017, 0018], and also see image put down by user defining the position in the map of its work environment, see [0063].
MCMURTRY does not specifically provide of the receiving the instruction, though, it is implied as the controllers are provided data to the computer included images for operation. In analogous reference, the SORENSEN reference on page 8, lines 8 to 24, teaches of a server connection and input and via connection channels such as wifi or telephone connection.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system and method of MCMURTRY with the receiving of data from a user as taught by SORENSEN, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 13 (upon 12), wherein after it is coupled to the autonomous deposition machine, the detachable deposition accessory sends data to the autonomous deposition machine.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0038] where the position of the nozzles 13 on rail 18 must be known to the computer to allow for creating the image.
Re 14 (upon 12), wherein after it is coupled to the autonomous deposition machine, the detachable deposition accessory overrides any deposition arrangement of the autonomous deposition machine.
See teaching by SORENSEN in page 8, lines 8-24 with “user input to the system can execute the shown functions”, whereupon, this implies of the overriding of any arrangement of the autonomous deposition machine.
Re 15 (upon 12), wherein the at least one deposition instruction is instructions are a command to print an image in a certain size and the control unit calculates the required sections of the print.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0007] of "Additionally, time intensive labor is reduced by using a simple computer interface for the preparation and planning of size, composition and colors etc."
Re 16 (upon 15), wherein the user sends the at least one deposition instruction instructions to the autonomous deposition apparatus via a cloud server or device, or an edge server or device.
In analogous reference, the SORENSEN reference on page 8, lines 8 to 24, teaches of the server connection and in put and via connection channels such as wifi or telephone connection.
Re 17 (upon 12), wherein of the material is a herbicide, pesticide, insecticide, plant growth aid, water or marking material, optionally wherein the marking material is a paint, ink, coloured material, powder.
MCMURTRY teaches in [0008] of the “dispensing apparatus adapted to dispense one or more of the following materials: paint, fertilizer, herbicides or seeds".
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,521,748 in view of MCMURTRY (US 2005/0055142 A1).
The US Patent ‘748 claims the features that encompass the claimed coupling, deposition arrangement, and locomotion arrangement.
The copending claims lack the claimed control unit.
However, this feature is known in the art as taught by MCMURTRY of the control unit in operation of the autonomous deposition apparatus, this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-31 of copending Application No. 18/853,201 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application encompasses the same features as the instant application including the same detachable deposition accessory, locomotion arrangement, control unit, coupling, and deposition arrangement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/853,246 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application encompasses the same features as the instant application including the same detachable deposition accessory, locomotion arrangement, control unit, coupling, and deposition arrangement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-22 of copending Application No. 18/853,280 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application encompasses the same features as the instant application including the same detachable deposition accessory, locomotion arrangement, control unit, coupling, and deposition arrangement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/853174 in view of MCMURTRY (US 2005/0055142 A1).
The copending application claims the features that encompass the claimed coupling (mounting rails), deposition arrangement (nozzles), locomotion arrangement (travel over ground surface and further including carriage wheels).
The copending application claims lack the claimed control unit.
However, this feature is known in the art as taught by MCMURTRY of the control unit in operation of the autonomous deposition apparatus, this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form:
STANKIE (US 2022/0137491 A1) teaches of a hot shoe magnetic connection.
ZELIK (US 2023/0100371 A1) teaches of a hot shoe magnetic connection.
CHABATA (US 2025/0085432 A1) teaches of sensing system for agricultural machine and teaching of computers and connection with servers [0049], and further teaching the work vehicle 100 having an implement 300 that can include a sprayer, see [0038]. Wherein, the mounting structure 149 can include magnet, bolt and nut, screw, or connecting hardware, [0041].
The following references are cited for the teaching of autonomous/robotic units that are used for dispensing fluids including paints:
MANDEVILLE (US 2023/0256462 A1)
RENNUIT (US 2019/0118209 A1)
SORENSEN (US 2018/0307242 A1)
TAYLOR (US 2018/0169685 A1)
RAMAN (US 2018/0093289 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights