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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/861817 filed October 30, 2024. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 12, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites two optional features of the plant- a plurality of treatment levels arranged at different heights, or one or more treatment lines including a plurality of treatment regions, the treatment regions each having stations and the treatment lines having conveying devices. Nothing in claim 1 further describes anything about the first option, the plurality of treatment levels. Indeed, nothing in any of the claims further limits the first option, such that a treatment plant having a plurality of levels alone would read on every single one of the instant claims. This interpretation of claim 1 will be used for examination below.
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 5, 12, 9-11 and 14 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.
Claims 5, 12 and 14 all use the term “preferably” to recite a feature, which is indefinite because it is unclear if the preference is intended to be a strict requirement of the claim or an optional one, particularly because elsewhere throughout the instant claims the term “optionally” is used to more clearly denote an optional limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 9 and 10 are indefinite because the first clause of the claim recites that the region “has at least the following treatment stations” but within the list of statements there are optional stations as well as an “and/or” statement before the last station. Therefore it is unclear if claims 9 and 10 are meant to require all of the stations in the list, or at least one, or some other amount. For the purposes of examination, it will be taken to require only at least one of the listed stations. Claim 11 depends from claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wittek et al. (WO 2018069012).
Regarding claim 1: Wittek et al. discloses a production plant (8) for the production of vehicle bodies (10) which comprises individual plants or zones (12, 14, 16, 18) which can be considered levels provided at different heights (figure 1), the plant (8) having an overall treatment line that includes a number of regions such as a feed section (40), a treatment line (50) and a bypass strand (44) each having a plurality of treatment stations (20) arranged along a conveyor system (26) which is a conveying device for each region that moves each vehicle body (10) along its respective treatment region, with a number of transfer devices (42, 46, 56, 58) which allow the vehicles (10) to move from one line moving in one direction (such as lines 40 and 44) to another line which moves in the opposite direction (line 50) (pages 6 and 9-10, figure 1).
Regarding claims 2-14: Wittek et al. teaches the first option of claim 1, that of a plurality of treatment levels arranged at different heights (figure 1), and since claims 2-14 only further limit the other option and not this first option, Wittek et al. reads on each and every dependent claim as well. However, each dependent claim is separately addressed in view of the second option of claim 1 and these alternate rejections are presented below.
Regarding claims 2 and 5: Wittek et al. discloses that the feed section (40) and treatment line (50) have conveying directions opposite and parallel to one another, such that either can be considered the primary or secondary treatment region. The bypass strand (44) also has treatment stations (20.2-1, 20.2) such that it alternatively can be considered one of the primary or secondary treatment regions (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3: Wittek et al. discloses that the conveyor system (26) has a plurality of transport carriages (32) which carry the vehicles (10) horizontally along each line such that they can be considered separate conveying devices for transporting the vehicles (10) in each respective direction (page 9, figure 1).
Regarding claim 4: Wittek et al. discloses that the individual line conveyor systems (26) are the same type of rail system (34), with individual carriages (32) for each vehicle (10) (page 9, figure 1).
Regarding claim 6: Wittek et al. discloses individual transfer devices (42, 46, 56, 58) which are conveying devices that transfer the vehicles (10) between the three treatment regions (40, 50, 44).
Regarding claim 7: Wittek et al. shows that the vehicles (10) has the same orientation in the feed section (40) and the bypass strand (44) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 8: Wittek et al. discloses that the vehicles (10) in the treatment line (50) are conveyed backwards relative to those in the feed section (40) (figure 1).
Regarding claim 9: Wittek et al. discloses that the treatment line (50) which can be considered the primary treatment region includes a basecoat station (2.5-1), while the feed section (40) includes multiple tempering zones (20.1) which are drying stations, such that the feed section (40) can alternatively be considered to be the primary treatment region (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10: Wittek et al. discloses that the treatment line (50) which can be considered the secondary treatment region includes a topcoat station (20.6-1), while the feed section (40) includes a tempering device with evaporation device (20.1-4) which is a flash-off station, such that it can alternatively be considered to be the secondary treatment region (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11: Wittek et al. discloses that the transfer devices (42, 46, 56, 58) are all arranged individually between each adjacent station such that the transfer devices can be before and after the intermediate drying station (20.1) of the feed section, and before and after the topcoat station (20.6-1) of the treatment line (50) such that the vehicles (10) are conveyable multiple times through each tempering station (20.1) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 12: Wittek et al. discloses that the treatment regions (40, 50, 44) are arranged above and below each other, and teaches that the rail system (34) supports the vehicles (10) vertically from below such that they can be considered vertical conveying devices (figure 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 13: Wittek et al. shows the treatment line (50) as being the lowest region, and therefore it can be considered the “secondary” treatment region (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14: Wittek et al. shows the region relationship in figure 1 which can either be read as a front view of a vertically separated region relationship or a plan view of a horizontally separated region relationship, in which case the treatment regions (40, 50, 44) are arranged next to each other on a common treatment level, where Witten et al. does teach that the conveying system (26) can include transverse displacement devices (page 10).
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.
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.
Claims 9-11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittek et al. as applied to claims 1-8 and 12-14 above and further in view of Herre et al. (US 2009/0117283).
Regarding claims 9-10: Wittek et al. discloses the above treatment stations which include some of the claimed stations including a topcoat station, but does not explicitly teach them including all of the claimed stations. However, Herre et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment plant with parallel lines including a base coat station, flash-off stations, multiple drying stations, conditioning stations, clear coat stations, as well as buffer storage areas, all arranged on different branches and areas of multiple parallel lines (par. 43, 76, 84, 102-107, figures 1-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use some of the types of stations described by Herre et al. in any of the treatment regions of Wittek et al. because Herre et al teaches that these are known treatment stations for coating vehicle bodies (par. 10) and using known elements in a known arrangement is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11: Wittek et al. discloses that the transfer devices (42, 46, 56, 58) are all arranged individually between each adjacent station such that the transfer devices would necessarily be located between the basecoat station and the intermediate drying station, between the intermediate drying station and the clearcoat station, after the topcoat station/intermediate storage station, and before the topcoat station/intermediate storage station, such that the vehicles (10) are conveyable multiple times through each tempering station (20.1) (see figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwab et al. (US 2020/0114384) discloses a similar vehicle treatment system having multiple lines moving in opposite directions, Schaefer (US 9,592,522) discloses a multilevel paint shop for coating vehicles with multiple parallel levels, Cole (US 2006/0068094) discloses a similar vehicle painting plant where a vehicle has the same orientation through multiple different directions and lines, and Ogasawara (US 5,681,619) discloses a similar plant having a layout with a number of parallel lines and branches, some of which move in opposite directions to others (figures 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
5/15/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights