DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on May 14, 2026 was received. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 were amended. Claims 12-13 were added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 18, 2026.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn because applicants response filed May 14, 2026 have address the issues raised.
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn because the title has been amended.
Claim Interpretation
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:
image processing unit in claim 12.
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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph on claims 4-6 and 8-11 are withdrawn because the claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi and Umeno on claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 9-10 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi, Umeno and Sayama on claims 2 and 8 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi, Umeno and Ohnishi on claims 5 and 11 are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
Please consider the following.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi (US 2022/0379337) in view of Tawata (US 2022/0274398) and Umeno (US 5,790,139).
In regards to claim 1, Hozumi teaches a coating device (1) comprising:
a painting head unit comprises
a head (10, painting head) (fig. 1; para. 19-20) which includes
a nozzle surface (12) comprises a plurality of discharge holes (11, nozzles),
where the head is a piezo type inkjet head (which will provide a piezoelectric substrate) that discharges coating material (fig. 1; para. 20-24);
a robot (20) comprising a plurality of arms (21), where the robot mounts the piezo type inkjet head at a tip/end and the robot moves the piezo type inkjet head to a desired position (fig. 1; para. 19-20, 25);
a control device (40, control unit) comprising:
a discharge controller (42, head control unit) controls the head which includes the piezo type inkjet head (having the piezoelectric substrate) (fig. 1; para. 26, 28)
an operation controller (43, arm control unit) controls the robot and the plurality of arms (fig. 1; para. 26, 28).
Hozumi teaches the coating device is controlled to discharge coating material at end portion regions (36g, edge painted area on an edge side) and center region (36h, inner side of an end side of painted area), where the amount discharged at the end portion region is smaller than the amount discharged at the center region (fig. 8; para. 58-60).
Hozumi does not explicitly teach the head control circuitry comprising a first processor and a first memory operably coupled to the first processor, and arm control circuitry comprising a second processor and a second memory operably coupled to the second processor.
However, Tawata teaches a head control portion (130) and arm control portion (110) which each comprise a CPU (processor) and memory that stores programs and data, for executing control of a nozzle head (50) and arms (24-27) of a painting robot (20) (fig. 2; para. 40, 49, 64).
Tawata teaches the head control portion uses voltage to cause discharge from the nozzle head and to control size of the droplets ejected from the nozzles (54) of the nozzle head (para. 61-62, 69). Tawata teaches the arms are moved using electric motors, where voltage(s) from the arm control portion will be used to cause movement and provide control of the movement speed (para. 42, 67, 70).
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 head control portion and arm control portion of Tawata onto the controllers of Hozumi because Tawata teaches it will provide uniform painting film thickness relative to a painting location (para. 9).
Hozumi and Tawata do not explicitly teach process of the head control circuitry causes a drive voltage transmitted to the piezoelectric substrate to vary an amount of deformation of the piezoelectric substrate during painting of an edge region of the paint area is smaller than an amount of deformation of the piezoelectric substrate during painting of an inner region of the paint area inward with respect to the edge region and the head control circuitry is configured to cause a smaller amount of deformation.
However, Umeno teaches an inkjet printing apparatus comprising a printhead (10) with resilient walls (141-145, piezoelectric substrate) and piezoelectric conversion elements (101, 102, 103, 104, 105). Umeno teaches when a voltage is applied the resilient wall is moved to reduce a volume of a ink chamber to cause ejection of ink. Umeno teaches different voltages will cause different amounts of ink to be ejected (fig. 1a-1b; col. 4, lines 1-35).
Umeno teaches a process of amounts of ink to be ejected is based on the amount to be applied to the surface using provided image data, where higher voltage will provide a higher amount of ink and lower voltage will provide a lower amount of ink (fig. 4-; col. 5, line 20- col. 6, line 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the printhead and voltage control of Umeno onto the head and control device of Hozumi and Tawata because Umeno teaches an image having a plurality of densities is printed accurately and clearly without deteriorating the resolution of printed image (col. 6, lines 44-50).
With regards to the claimed function of to reduce paint overflow such that paint outside of a respective opening of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is inhibited from adhering to a discharged droplet, these are recitations that are the result of using the claim process, that has been addressed above. The recitations do not add further structure. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
As Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno teach the structural limitations of the claim, the prior art combination is capable of causing a smaller amount of deformation which will provide the claimed reduce paint overflow such that paint outside of a respective opening of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is inhibited from adhering to a discharged droplet.
In regards to claim 3, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed, where Hozumi teaches larger drops are discharged and applied to the to-be-coated surface (30) around the center region (36h), and smaller drops are discharged at the end portion regions (36g) (fig. 8; para. 58-59), where the prior arts combination teaches the change of drops discharge is the result of change in voltage applied to the walls of the printhead.
In regards to claim 4, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed, where Hozumi teaches the robot is a six-axis articulated robot and is capable of rotating the head from the periphery edge painted area to the normal painted area and the process of moving the head to first perform painting along the edge painted area followed by the normal painted area (fig. 1; para. 25), the prior arts combination teaches the movement of the arms is provided by voltage(s) applied to the robot.
In regards to claim 6 and 9-10, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed, where Umeno teaches the process of using voltage waveforms to draw the ink into the ink chamber followed by discharging of the ink (fig. 4; col. 5, lines 5-35).
In regards to claims 12-13, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the painting robot comprises an image processing unit configured to capture image data corresponding to the paint area of the workpiece; the image processing unit is communicably coupled to the control unit; and the control unit is configured to: identify the edge region and the inner region of the workpiece based on the image data; and generate, based on the image data, a paint path corresponding to a path to be traversed by the painting head unit and
the head control circuitry is configured to: determine a current position of the painting head unit along the paint path; adjust the drive voltage transmitted to the piezoelectric substrate based on the current position of the painting head unit such that the drive voltage causes a smaller amount of deformation of the piezoelectric substrate when the current position corresponds to the edge region than when the current position corresponds to the inner region.
However, Tawata teaches an image processing portion (100, image processing unit) forms image data corresponding to the painting of the vehicle. Tawata teaches the positioning of nozzle head is controlled and the discharge from the nozzle head is controlled based on the image processing in the image processing portion (fig. 2; para. 64-66, 69, 89, 94-95, 104-105).
Tawata teaches the positioning of nozzle head is control to prevent overlap and gaps which result in poor painting (para. 78).
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 image processing portion onto the control device of Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno because Tawata teaches it will provide uniform painting (para. 101).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Sayama (US 6,290,315).
In regards to claims 2 and 8, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed above to teach the relationship between voltage and discharge amount.
Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno do not explicitly teach a drive frequency of the piezoelectric substrate when performing painting in the inner region of the paint area is a frequency for which a resonance of the piezoelectric substrate is larger than the drive frequency of the piezoelectric substrate when performing painting of the edge region of the paint area.
However, Sayama teaches the relationship between resonance frequency and vibration of the pressure generating chamber (15) of the recording head (10) (col. 13, line 60- col. 14, line 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the relationship between resonance frequency and vibration of the piezoelectric vibrator of Sayama onto the head and control device of Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno because Sayama teaches it will allow for a correct landing for both small and larger drops of ink (col. 14, lines 15-25).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Ohnishi (US 2015/0098028).
In regards to claims 5 and 11, Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach openings of the plurality of nozzles comprises a convex or concave surface.
However, Ohnishi teaches inkjet head (12) comprising a nozzle plate (150) which provides a concave structure around hole-shaped nozzles (102) (fig. 2-4; para. 87-93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the inkjet head comprising the nozzle plate with the concave structure of Ohnishi onto the head of Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno because Ohnishi teaches it will provide appropriate ejecting the ink droplets from the nozzles (para. 93, 95).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Neither Hozumi nor Umeno teaches or suggests adjusting an amount of deformation of a piezoelectric substrate at the edge region to "reduce paint overflow such that paint outside of a respective opening of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is inhibited from adhering to a discharged droplet."
A person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") would not modify the solution in Hozumi by varying the drive voltage (and thus the deformation) of a piezoelectric substrate, as claimed, to deposit smaller droplets around an edge region because it would impermissibly change Hozumi's stated principle of operation of varying a gap to arrive at this result.
Hozumi has already solved the problem of how to deposit different sizes of droplets along different regions and there would be no reason for a POSITA to find a new solution to the same problem that was already solved, especially when that requires fundamentally changing the stated principle of operation of Hozumi.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach “reduce paint overflow such that paint outside of a respective opening of each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is inhibited from adhering to a discharged droplet”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art combination of Hozumi, Tawata and Umeno as discussed above, where Umeno teaches a process of amounts of ink to be ejected is based on the amount to be applied to the surface using provided image data, where higher voltage will provide a higher amount of ink and lower voltage will provide a lower amount of ink (fig. 4-; col. 5, line 20- col. 6, line 45).
In response to applicant's argument a POSITA would not modify Hozumi with Umeno-or any other reference-because it would change Hozumi's principle of operation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). A review of Hozumi does not show any discussion which prevent the use of varying the discharge and the positioning of the head.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Umeno provides a motivation of an image having a plurality of densities is printed accurately and clearly without deteriorating the resolution of printed image (col. 6, lines 44-50).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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