DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 8-11 in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 November 10, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
an inner side of an end side of the painted area (found at end of claim 1);
rotate said edge painted area located at the periphery of said painted area when performing painting of said painted area (found in claim 4);
a convex or concave site is formed around an opening part of said nozzle at a nozzle forming surface in which the opening part of said nozzle is exposed in said painting head (claim 5);
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Labeling of the end side and the inner side is preferred. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
head control unit in claim 1;
arm control unit in claim 1.
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 4-6 and 8-11 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " said arm control unit is configured to rotate said edge painted area located at the periphery of said painted area when performing painting of said painted area". However, the arm control unit is used to control movement of the painting head unit and the edge painted area is part of the area of the vehicle. It unclear what is being claimed since the robot arm does not move the vehicle.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the periphery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the painted area" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpretated a normal painted area.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “painting being performed of said normal painted area that is enclosed within said edge painted area after the completion of the painting of said edge painted area”. It unclear what is being claimed. Is the process where painting of the edge done first followed by the “normal painted area”?
Claim 5-6 and 8-11 each recites the limitation "said nozzle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as previously a plurality of nozzles is recited. It is unclear if reference back is to one, some or all of the plurality of nozzles. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpretated as the plurality of nozzles.
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, 3-4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi (US 2022/0379337) in view of 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) comprises a plurality of arms (21), where the robot mounts the head at a tip/end and the robot moves the 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 process of an amount of deformation of said piezoelectric substrate during painting of an edge painted area on an edge side of the area is smaller than an amount of deformation of said piezoelectric substrate of painting a normal painted area on an inner side of an end side of the painted area.
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 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).
In regards to claim 3, Hozumi 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).
Umeno teaches the process to discharge smaller drops will involve lower/smaller voltages and the process to discharge larger drops will involve higher/larger voltages (col. 5, lines 20-35).
In regards to claim 4, Hozumi 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).
In regards to claim 6 and 9-10, Hozumi 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).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hozumi and Umeno as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Sayama (US 6,290,315).
In regards to claims 2 and 8, Hozumi and Umeno as discussed above to teach the relationship between voltage and discharge amount.
Hozumi and Umeno do not explicitly teach a drive frequency of said piezoelectric substrate when performing painting in said normal painted area is a frequency for which a resonance of said piezoelectric substrate is larger than the drive frequency of said piezoelectric substrate when performing painting of said edge painted 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 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 and Umeno as applied to claims 1, 3-4 6, and 9-10 above, and further in view of Ohnishi (US 2015/0098028).
In regards to claims 5 and 11, Hozumi and Umeno as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach a convex or concave site is formed around an opening part of the plurality of nozzles at a nozzle forming surface in which the opening part of the plurality of nozzles are exposed in said painting head.
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 and Umeno because Ohnishi teaches it will provide appropriate ejecting the ink droplets from the nozzles (para. 93, 95).
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