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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16490013, filed on 08/29/2019.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On pg. 6 ln. 26 "at east" is assumed that it was intended to be "at least". .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains the word "compirising" instead of "comprising".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange US 20230244255 A1 Priority 2013-02-11 in view of FUKUDA US 20140355031 A1 2014-12-04.
Lange discloses calculating a time (determine when maintenance is needed) by when a maintenance operation is to be performed on at least one component (the sprayer 1), wherein the calculating is based on a data set (previous spray volume data) comprising at least one operating parameter in a past operation (spray volume) of the at least one component (¶274 “The spray volume data that is calculated by the sprayer 1 and exported via the handheld computer 14 can be used for managing maintenance of the sprayer 1. The sprayer 1 includes various wear components, such as pump components (e.g., packings, valves, piston, etc.) and gun components such as the spray tip. Each of these components should be replaced on a periodic basis to maintain optimal performance of the sprayer 1, however each component wears at a different rate and has a different life, such that maintenance must be done at different times for different components. The principal wear of the components is due to spraying paint under pressure. Therefore, the spray volume data can be used to monitor the wear of the components and trigger alerts. In some embodiments, the spray volume will be compared to a threshold, and when that threshold is met or exceeded, an alert will be sent to the user to perform maintenance. The threshold can therefore represent a maintenance reminder level for inspection or replacement of components.” This is interpreted as calculating when (a time) maintenance is needed based on the amount of fluid being sprayed reaching the threshold.);
implementing the method wherein the at least one component includes a pump within at least one fluid delivery system (¶4 “The fluid delivery subsystem is configured to pump and heat a fluid.”).
Lange does not disclose expressly a scheduled future operation of the at least one component or a job queue.
FUKUDA discloses a job analysis section 201 that interfaces with a print queue 203 (job queue data) of an image forming apparatus (fluid delivery system), predicting when ink/toner will run out before operations can be completed, and issuing an alert (Fig. 4C) to prevent downtime (Fig. 2 and ¶52-55, 69-70 and 104 using sensors to detect when a consumable (ink , toner) is about to run out, to replace the cartridge (the component) when the operator is scheduled to be able to, preventing downtime).
Lange and FUKUDA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of preventing downtime of a fluid delivery system and predicting needed maintenance.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the paint delivery system of Lange to adapt the job queueing ability of FUKUDA to predict maintenance by considering scheduled future operation of the at least one component.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce downtime of the fluid delivery system (image forming apparatus) increasing user friendliness. (FUKUDA ¶119 “Further, when it is determined that paper-out will be caused during the absence time of the operator, it is possible to automatically change the execution order of the jobs to thereby avoid paper-out from being caused during the absence time of the operator. This enables the operator to reduce a possibility of occurrence of downtime, and hence user friendliness of the image forming apparatus is improved.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Lange and FUKUDA for the benefit of a scheduled future operation of the at least one component to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the fluid delivery system is configured to deliver paint (Lange in view of FUKUDA discloses “In one example, the disclosure describes a spray system comprising a hand portable paint sprayer for spraying spray fluid, the sprayer comprising a piston pump that outputs paint under pressure for spraying,” in Lange ¶7).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises at least two of tank levels, fluid movement between fluid tanks, pressure (volumetric output), flow, fluid velocity, motor speed, cycle rate, temperature, oil level, noise, wear, greasing schedules, abrasiveness, maintenance history of the at least one component, and time (Lange in view of FUKUDA discloses “For instance, with respect to a current lifetime volumetric output of the sprayer (e.g., current lifetime gallons of output), multiple alerts can be generated to replace, e.g., a tip of the sprayer at a first period of volumetric output (e.g., every first number of gallons) and packings of the sprayer at a second period of volumetric output (e.g., ever second number of gallons, which can be different than the first number of gallons). More than two different thresholds, periods of volumetric output, or other maintenance thresholds can be utilized, such as three or more different thresholds. In certain examples, the differing thresholds utilized for alerts can be generated with respect to a time of use, rather than the volumetric output.” In Lange ¶278).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the scheduled future operation of the at least one component comprises job queue data, and wherein the calculating comprises predicting at least one future operating parameter of the at least one component (Lange in view of FUKUDA discloses print queue 203 (job queue data) and predicting when the ink/paper will run out and require replacement. FUKUDA ¶53 discloses that the alerts could be consumable (toner/ink) related. ¶69 “predicts a time at which paper-out (consumable, which could be toner/ink) will be caused, using the printing time prediction section 205. The paper-out prediction section 207 corresponds to a time prediction unit configured to predict a time at which replenishment or replacement of a consumable to be consumed by execution of the jobs becomes necessary.” This is read as predicting the replacement ink (future operating parameter) in response to determining that the current job/print queue (job queue data) will cause the apparatus to require replacement (future maintenance).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, further comprising monitoring at least one of the at least one operating parameters with at least one sensor and updating the past operation of the at least one component (Lange in view of FUKUDA discloses a pump cycle sensor 27 that calculates that indicates the amount that has been pumped and stored for future threshold calculations. Lange ¶118 discloses “…the indication can indicate that a 0.1 gallon increment of fluid was pumped according to the pump cycle sensor 27.”, ¶279 “The principal wear of the components is due to spraying paint under pressure. Therefore, the spray volume data can be used to monitor the wear of the components and trigger alerts. In some embodiments, the spray volume will be compared to a threshold, and when that threshold is met or exceeded, an alert will be sent to the user to perform maintenance.” This is read as using the volume data from the cycle sensor 27 which is gathered over time and would contain past volume data to be used in future threshold check).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, further comprising providing an alert indication based on a time remaining until the maintenance operation is to be performed (Lange in view of FUKUDA discloses providing an alert based on a time remaining. FUKUDA ¶53 discloses a time when the consumable needs to be replaced and Fig. 4, ¶104 a warning dialog (alert) being displayed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights