Patent Application 17983162 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INLINE CONTINUOUS-FLOW - Rejection
Patent Application 17983162 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INLINE CONTINUOUS-FLOW
Title: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INLINE CONTINUOUS-FLOW LIVERY APPLICATION
Application Information
- Invention Title: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INLINE CONTINUOUS-FLOW LIVERY APPLICATION
- Application Number: 17983162
- Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-11-08T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-11-08T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 427
- National Sub-Class: 407100
- Examiner Employee Number: 87586
- Art Unit: 1717
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 7
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on March 12, 2025 was received. Claims 9-10, 15 and 18 were amended, claim 17 was cancelled and claims 21-29 were newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued December 12, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 10, 15-16 and 19 as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn because Applicant suitably amended claims 10, 15 and 19 to fix the indefinite subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
New claims 23 and 28 recite that the environmental conditions being maintained includes “air temperature”, which is not explicitly supported in the disclosure as filed. The disclosure specifically mentions maintaining humidity, air pressure and air quality (par. 21), but does not mention “air temperature” as claimed. However, the disclosure does state that the elements performing this maintenance are heating and ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) systems which at the very least are implied to be capable of maintaining air temperature, and as such this limitation does have implicit support in the disclosure as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bausen et al. (US 2010/0304039) in view of Barich et al. (US 6,446,912) on claims 9-12 and 14-17 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 9 to require specific HVAC systems for each booth.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al. in view of Barich et al. and Jang (US 2020/0346238).
Regarding claim 9: Bausen et al. discloses an aircraft treatment system including a plurality of cabin-like stations including a pretreating station (1), a painting station (2) and a decorating station (3), each station having partition walls (8a-c) where at least the partition wall (8c) between the painting station (2) and decorating station (3) is shared between the two booths. Bausen et al. discloses that the first station prepares the surface of the aircraft part (4), the second station applies a painting including a base coat and a clear coat, which can be considered “application of a livery” (pars. 22-25, figure 1).
Bausen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that all of the stations have common partition walls (8a-c), and fails to explicitly disclose that one station applies the paint and the subsequent one applies the clear coat. However, Bausen et al. does disclose that at least one of the partition walls (8c) can be shared between adjacent stations, and that the stations should be as close as possible to avoid dust or vapors escaping when opening the doors (par. 9, figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make all of the partition walls (8) shared between adjacent stations, since Bausen et al. teaches that the seal of each cabin is important and opening only one door rather than two will further improve the goal of reducing dust/vapor leakage (pars. 9-10), and further because Bausen et al. shows that having a shared partition wall (8c) is functionally equivalent to having two separate partition walls (8a, 8b) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. still fails to explicitly disclose a separate station for applying the clearcoat. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including a large number of stations each performing a single task, including a number of painting stations (34, 35a-c) (col. 4 lines 19-32, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate at least one of the stations of Bausen et al. such that the two painting operations can take place in separate stations as taught by Barich et al. because Barich et al. teaches that having more stations available can help reduce bottlenecks in production based on the individual needs of each facility (col. 2 lines 1-12, col. 8 lines 1-10) and because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Barich et al. and Bausen et al. fail to explicitly disclose an HVAC system associated with each booth, for maintaining environmental conditions within the respective booth. However, Jang discloses a similar painting process line having a number of discrete zones or booths, where each zone includes an air control system (10) having a number of air conditioners and measuring devices capable of maintaining a temperature and humidity of the corresponding zone, including heating the air such that they can be considered HVAC systems (par. 32-37, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use individual HVAC systems as taught by Jang for the booths of Barich et al. and Bausen et al. because Jang teaches that this solves problems relating to wait time and throughput due to changes in air conditions between processes, as well as reduces energy loss for the process (pars. 5-7).
Regarding claims 11-12: Bausen et al. discloses that the partitions (8) include door elements (9) which can be opened or closed to allow the aircraft part (4) to traverse through to the next station (par. 23).
Regarding claim 14: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is an aircraft rudder unit, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that it is a wingless aircraft fuselage. However, in apparatus claims, the article worked upon does not further structurally define the apparatus itself and is therefore treated as an intended use limitation. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Therefore, as the apparatus of Bausen et al. is capable of working on a wingless aircraft fuselage it reads on claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is sanded, such that a prior coating is removed, but does not explicitly disclose another station for performing this sanding process. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including blasting stations (30, 32) meant to remove any previous coating provided with bays for performing the blasting operation (col. 6 lines 35-62). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a blasting station similar to that of Barich et al. to perform the sanding operation of Bausen et al. because Barich et al. teaches that performing a blasting/sanding operation in an enclosed bay/station is functionally equivalent to doing so in the generic way disclosed by Bausen et al., and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
In modifying Bausen et al. to include a blasting/sanding station it would obviously include another partition (8) and door (9) shared by the subsequent station, which in the case of Bausen et al. it would be the pretreatment station (1) which treats the sanded aircraft part (4) (Bausen et al. par. 24, figure 1).
Regarding claim 16: Bausen et al. discloses that the partitions (8) include door elements (9) which can be opened or closed to allow the aircraft part (4) to traverse through to the next station (par. 23).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang as applied to claims 9, 11-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Mathis (US 2018/0201029).
Regarding claim 10: Bausen et al. discloses that the stations have closed cabin-like shapes such that they are closed on all sides and therefore block external light (par. 9), meaning the ambient light conditions within each station would inherently be reduced relative to exterior conditions. Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang fail to explicitly disclose that the system and each booth are located within a hangar bay. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus including each of the stations of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang fail to explicitly disclose that the coating is applied with an inkjet system. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment system which uses an inkjet printhead (300) to apply paint to the aircraft (par. 47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inkjet system to apply the paint of Bausen et al. as taught by Mathis because Mathis teaches that inkjet printheads are functionally equivalent to many other types of application devices for coating aircraft parts (par. 47) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Claim 14 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang as applied to claims 9, 11-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Swanberg et al. (US 2010/0233373).
Regarding claim 14: Bausen et al. discloses that the apparatus is for construction of aircraft in general with large features (par. 3) but only gives a specific example of a rudder unit. However, Swanberg et al. discloses a similar aircraft treatment apparatus which provides separate treatment of wings, fuselages and rudders (par. 35). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Bausen et al. to treat wingless fuselages as Swanberg et al. discloses because Swanberg et al. teaches that all of these parts are often treated separately prior to assembly (par. 5, 35, 111) and because use of a known technique, such as the apparatus of Bausen et al. to improve similar devices (i.e. a fuselage rather than a rudder) in the same way is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al. Jang and Mathis.
Regarding claim 18: Bausen et al. discloses an aircraft treatment system including a plurality of cabin-like stations including a pretreating station (1), a painting station (2) and a decorating station (3), each station having partition walls (8a-c) where at least the partition wall (8c) between the painting station (2) and decorating station (3) is shared between the two booths. Bausen et al. discloses that the first station prepares the surface of the aircraft part (4), the second station applies a painting including a base coat and a clear coat, which can be considered “application of a livery” (pars. 22-25, figure 1).
Bausen et al. fails to explicitly disclose that all of the stations have common partition walls (8a-c), and fails to explicitly disclose that one station applies the paint and the subsequent one applies the clear coat. However, Bausen et al. does disclose that at least one of the partition walls (8c) can be shared between adjacent stations, and that the stations should be as close as possible to avoid dust or vapors escaping when opening the doors (par. 9, figure 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make all of the partition walls (8) shared between adjacent stations, since Bausen et al. teaches that the seal of each cabin is important and opening only one door rather than two will further improve the goal of reducing dust/vapor leakage (pars. 9-10), and further because Bausen et al. shows that having a shared partition wall (8c) is functionally equivalent to having two separate partition walls (8a, 8b) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Bausen et al. still fails to explicitly disclose a separate station for applying the clearcoat. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including a large number of stations each performing a single task, including a number of painting stations (34, 35a-c) (col. 4 lines 19-32, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate at least one of the stations of Bausen et al. such that the two painting operations can take place in separate stations as taught by Barich et al. because Barich et al. teaches that having more stations available can help reduce bottlenecks in production based on the individual needs of each facility (col. 2 lines 1-12, col. 8 lines 1-10) and because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Bausen et al. and Barich et al. still fail to explicitly disclose that the system is located within a hangar bay. However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Barich et al. and Bausen et al. fail to explicitly disclose an HVAC system associated with each booth, for maintaining environmental conditions within the respective booth. However, Jang discloses a similar painting process line having a number of discrete zones or booths, where each zone includes an air control system (10) having a number of air conditioners and measuring devices capable of maintaining a temperature and humidity of the corresponding zone, including heating the air such that they can be considered HVAC systems (par. 32-37, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use individual HVAC systems as taught by Jang for the booths of Barich et al. and Bausen et al. because Jang teaches that this solves problems relating to wait time and throughput due to changes in air conditions between processes, as well as reduces energy loss for the process (pars. 5-7).
Regarding claim 19: Bausen et al. discloses that the aircraft part (4) is sanded, such that a prior coating is removed, but does not explicitly disclose another station for performing this sanding process. However, Barich et al. discloses a similar vehicle treatment system including blasting stations (30, 32) meant to remove any previous coating provided with bays for performing the blasting operation (col. 6 lines 35-62). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a blasting station similar to that of Barich et al. to perform the sanding operation of Bausen et al. because Barich et al. teaches that performing a blasting/sanding operation in an enclosed bay/station is functionally equivalent to doing so in the generic way disclosed by Bausen et al., and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
In modifying Bausen et al. to include a blasting/sanding station it would obviously include another partition (8) and door (9) shared by the subsequent station, which in the case of Bausen et al. it would be the pretreatment station (1) which treats the sanded aircraft part (4) (Bausen et al. par. 24, figure 1).
Regarding claim 20: Bausen et al. discloses a transport rail system (6) for seamlessly transporting the aircraft part (4) through the set of treatment stations (1-3) (par. 22, figure 1).
Claims 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang as applied to claims 9, 11-12 and 14-16 above.
Regarding claim 21: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) of each system (10) is set to control conditions differently based on the exact needs of each spray booth (Jang pars. 36-37).
Regarding claim 23: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones control both air temperature and humidity (Jang par. 36).
Regarding claim 24: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones includes burners and reheaters which are heating devices (Jang par. 37).
Regarding claim 25: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) have safety monitoring systems such that the controller (155) of the system can determine if a signal from each air conditioner (13) is abnormal and generate an alarm based on various operational environmental conditions for each specific air conditioner (13) (Jang par. 61). Because each of the air conditioners (13) correspond to a specific booth these safety systems can be considered to correspond with the materials used by each booth.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang as applied to claims 9, 11-12, 14-16, 21 and 23-25 above and further in view of Mathis.
Regarding claim 22: Bausen et al., Barich et al. and Jang disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones measures temperature and humidity outside of the booths in order to determine how to treat the air before it is introduced into the booth such that the conditions in the outdoor zone would be different from those inside the booth zones (Jang pars. 34-35, figure 2). Bausen et al., Barich et al., and Jang fail to explicitly disclose a hangar bay in which the booths are located.
However, Mathis discloses a similar aircraft treatment which treats the aircraft within a hangar (120) (par. 51, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the apparatus including each of the stations of Bausen et al. within a hangar bay as taught by Mathis because Mathis shows that it is a well-known arrangement for a treatment space and using a well-known arrangement with a known apparatus is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis as applied to claims 18-20 above.
Regarding claim 26: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) of each system (10) is set to control conditions differently based on the exact needs of each spray booth (Jang pars. 36-37).
Regarding claim 27: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones measures temperature and humidity outside of the booths in order to determine how to treat the air before it is introduced into the booth such that the conditions in the hangar corresponding to the outdoor zone would be different from those inside the booth zones (Jang pars. 34-35, figure 2).
Regarding claim 28: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air control systems (10) for each of the zones control both air temperature and humidity (Jang par. 36).
Regarding claim 29: Bausen et al., Barich et al., Jang and Mathis disclose the above combination in which the air conditioners (13) have safety monitoring systems such that the controller (155) of the system can determine if a signal from each air conditioner (13) is abnormal and generate an alarm based on various operational environmental conditions for each specific air conditioner (13) (Jang par. 61). Because each of the air conditioners (13) correspond to a specific booth these safety systems can be considered to correspond with the materials used by each booth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Bausen et al. and Barich et al. fail to disclose the new limitations regarding HVAC systems.
In response:
Applicant’s argument is moot because it does not refer to the newly cited Jang reference which does teach these limitations, as presented above.
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 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
5/20/2025
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717