DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18), in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has withdrawn Claims 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 by the election of Invention I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser.
Nessar (US Patent No. 3,898,151) is directed toward an apparatus for electrocoating conductive articles (title). Komori (US Pub. No. 2008/0029368 A1) is directed toward a non-contact conveying device using super conducting magnetic levitation (title). Neuhaeuser (US Pub. No. 2013/0126310 A1) is directed toward a magnetic conveyor (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Nessar discloses a bulk finishing system as per the abstract where it indicates the apparatus is provided for obtaining the electrical deposition of a protective coating. The apparatus of Nessar depicted in FIG. 4 illustrates two stages showing the pretreatment stage (i.e.: liquid treatment composition 65) and an electrocoat stage (paint bath 76) and is explained in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20. The illustration in FIG. 4 and the abstract is analogous to “an entire finishing system with a plurality of liquid immersion workstations defining a finishing process for a plurality of metal work pieces” (i.e.: electrically conductive and magnetically-attractable metal articles). Nessar further discloses that the apparatus wherein each of the plurality of liquid immersion workstations includes a tank, and the plurality of metal work pieces are conveyed through a group of one or more of the respective tanks of the plurality of liquid immersion workstations by magnetic conveyance (FIG. 4 and Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20). FIG. 4 of Nessar further depicts
an inclined downstream tank end wall forming a work piece slide, with a conveyor extending along an exterior side of the inclined downstream tank end wall, and wherein the plurality of work pieces are introduced loosely in bulk to each one of the group of tanks of the plurality of liquid immersion workstations. However, Nessar does not disclose a non-contact magnetic means of conveyance nor a magnetized conveyor used to move the (coated) parts between liquid immersion work stations.
One of the challenges that Nessar identifies with the use of magnetic means of moving parts is the formation of piles or groups of parts, termed “nesting,” in Col. 6 Lines 46-58 during the coating process. Nessar further describes that the magnetic field needs sufficient strength to influence the locus of the articles (i.e.: enough magnetic force to move the articles ). It is reasonable to expect that optimization of the magnetic field would prevent the nesting phenomenon noted by Nessar.
Komori is directed toward a non-contact conveying device using super conducting magnetic levitation (title). Komori is used to move semiconductors through a process where non-contact is important to keep the materials clean (¶1). The super conductive magnetic levitation is achieved by the placement of a super conductor below the permanent magnets as indicated in ¶9-14). In the arrangement presented in Komori, a conveying table is used to move the articles (¶25-36). The use of levitation resulting from magnetism would reduce the propensity of nesting noted as one of the challenges using the apparatus of Nessar and this modification meets the limitation of non-contact magnetic conveyance.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrocoating apparatus of Nessar by using a super conductor immediately below the permanent magnets as suggested by Komori (in the liquid tanks treatment tanks) with the reasonable expectation of reducing the nesting or piling of coated articles moving through the liquid treatment baths.
The combination of Nessar in view of Komori does not disclose the use of a magnetic conveyer to move parts between liquid coating stations (i.e.: “magnetic slides”) since Nessar employs a demagnetizer 72 and 83 in FIG. 4 to address nesting of the articles as they exit the coating tanks. However, the use of super conducting magnetic levitation during the coating process would obviate the need for the demagnetizer after parts leaving the tank. Another piece of prior art, Neuhaeuser, discloses a magnetic conveyor belt (title) for moving metallic parts found in industries like the automotive and packaging (¶2). Neuhaeuser further indicates that electrostatic charge often builds when magnetic conveyors are used to move metallic parts (¶5-11). The electrostatic charge shorten the lifetime of the magnets in the conveying device (¶6) and this problem is addressed using charge-dissipating coatings or fabrics such as polyamide (¶33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bulk finishing device of Nessar in view of Komori by using the anti-static coated magnetic conveyor belts/slides of Neuhaeuser with the reasonable expectation of extending the life of the magnetic slides that move parts between liquid coatings tanks.
Regarding Claim 2, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid immersion workstations define an e-coat process including a charged e-coat bath workstation having a pair of oppositely charged electrodes, one of which forms the work piece slide as depicted in FIG. 4 of Nessar and discussed in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20.
Regarding Claim 3, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 2, wherein the e-coat process, the plurality of immersion work stations includes, in order clean, rinse, conversion coating, rinse, e-coat, and post rinse workstations as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Nessar and discussed in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20.
Regarding Claim 4, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid immersion workstations define an e-coat process including a charged e-coat bath workstation, and wherein the bulk finishing system comprises a basket or belt for conveying the plurality of metal work pieces through the charged e-coat bath workstation such that the group of tanks having non-contact magnetic conveyance (i.e.: super conducting magnetic levitation) does not include a tank of the charged e-coat bath workstation as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Nessar and discussed in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20. In particular, FIG. 4 of Nessar shows a pretreatment stage that would use non-contact magnetic conveyance when under the influence of as super conductor as taught by Komori and discussed in detail above in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser teaches the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, further comprising a curing workstation including an oven chamber configured to cure a coating on the plurality of work pieces resulting from the plurality of liquid immersion workstations defining the finishing process, wherein the curing workstation includes at least a first conveyor and a second conveyor positioned below the first conveyor and configured to receive loose work pieces dropped from the end of the first conveyor as depicted in FIG. 3 of Nessar where belt 44 is the first conveyer and the 55 is the second conveyor as a position lower than first conveyer.
Regarding Claim 6, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1 wherein the magnetic conveyor includes a plurality of permanent magnets as indicated by Nessar in Col 12 Lines 27-49 and by Neuhaeuser in ¶2 and Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 7, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, wherein the magnetic conveyor includes a plurality of electromagnets as indicated by Nessar in Col 12 Lines 27-49 and by Neuhaeuser in ¶2 and Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 9, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, wherein the work piece slide (i.e.: the magnetic conveyer) is constructed of a material having higher wear resistance than the remainder of the tank as indicated in Neuhaeuser which used an antistatic coating of polyamide which is a polymer that provides low friction and therefore improved wear resistance (¶16-19).
Regarding Claim 10, Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, wherein the work piece slide is configured as a removable portion of the tank as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Nessar where the right hand conveyer is configured as separate from the tank (i.e.: removable).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessar, Komori and Neuhaeuser as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Spodig.
Spodig (US Patent No. 4,236,632) is directed toward a magnetic conveyor belt (title).
Regarding Claim 8, Nessar, Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk finishing system of Claim 1, but said system does not disclose the workpiece slide has raised sidewalls configured to maintain the work pieces therebetween.
Since the workpiece slide of the combination of Nessar, Komori and Neuhaeuser is coated with a low-friction material like polyamide, it is reasonable to expect the coated articles may move around a lot on the slide while being moved through the entire process causing damage to the coated parts. One of ordinary skill would investigate solutions to control the ancillary movements of the workpieces on the magnetic conveyor.
Spodig is also directed toward a magnetic conveyor (title). Spodig indicates that a challenge associated with magnetic conveyor belts is concentration of the field in the center of said belt which may present a challenge to keep large and/or bulky articles firmly magnetized to the belt (Col 1 Lines 7-46). In order to address this deficiency and spread the entire field over the belt (i.e.: the entire coated article), Spodig introduced U-shaped rails that have permanent magnets as depicted in FIG.1 and FIG. 2 This arrangement improves the field strength as explained in Col 2 Lines 21-43 which will better control the position and ancillary movements of the bulky workpiece on the magnetic slide.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic slide of Nessar, Komori and Neuhaeuser with a U-shaped rail taught by Spodig with the reasonable expectation of improving the quality of the coated articles are they will be held in place more securely due to the presence of the stronger magnetic field.
7. Claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessa in view of Neuhaeuser.
Nessar (US Patent No. 3,898,151) is directed toward an apparatus for electrocoating conductive articles (title). Neuhaeuser (US Pub. No. 2013/0126310 A1) is directed toward a magnetic conveyor (title).
Regarding Claim 11, Nessar discloses a e-coat finishing system as per the abstract where it indicates the apparatus is provided for obtaining the electrical deposition of a protective coating. The apparatus of Nessar depicted in FIG. 4 illustrates two stages showing the pretreatment stage (i.e.: liquid treatment composition 65) and an electrocoat stage (paint bath 76) and is explained in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20. The illustration in FIG. 4 and the description in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20 is analogous to “a plurality of liquid immersion workstations defining a single complete e-coat process, including at least one pre-treatment workstation with a tank, an e-coat bath workstation with a tank, and at least one post-rinse workstation with a tank.” In another depiction of the apparatus for electrodeposition in FIG. 6, Nessar depicts two different electrode (125 and 134) which function in conjunction with the work pieces to facilitate electrodeposition of the organic coating onto the work pieces. Use of the electrocoating tank of Nessar in FIG. 6 along in the entire coating process (i.e.: clean, pretreat, e-coat, rinse, bake) meet the limitations of Claim 11 that include: “a pair of electrodes arranged in the tank of the e-coat bath workstation, a first of the pair of electrodes configured to provide a slide along which work pieces are conveyed, and a second of the pair of electrodes positioned in an e-coat process liquid spaced from the slide.” As explained in multiple sections of Nessar (e.g.: Col 8 Lines 62-68 continuing to Col 9 Lines 6), the electrocoat system further includes a curing workstation provided in a downstream direction from the plurality of liquid immersion workstations and configured to receive the plurality of work pieces exiting a final one of the plurality of liquid immersion workstations. FIG. 4 of Nessar further depicts a plurality of conveyors configured to run upward along respective inclined downstream end walls of the respective tanks of the plurality of liquid immersion workstations, wherein, throughout the plurality of liquid immersion workstations and Col 8 Lines 62-68 continuing to Col 9 Lines 6 of Nessar discusses movement into the curing workstation the work pieces are conveyed solely by the plurality of conveyors. However, Nessar does not disclose a magnetized conveyor used to move the (coated) parts between liquid immersion work stations.
One of the challenges that Nessar identifies with the use of magnetic means of moving parts is the formation of piles or groups of parts, termed “nesting,” in Col. 6 Lines 46-58 during the coating process. Nessar further describes that the magnetic field needs sufficient strength to influence the locus of the articles (i.e.: enough magnetic force to move the articles ). It is reasonable to expect that optimization of the magnetic field would reduce or prevent the nesting phenomenon noted by Nessar. Another piece of prior art, Neuhaeuser, discloses a magnetic conveyor belt (title) for moving metallic parts found in industries like the automotive and packaging (¶2). Neuhaeuser further indicates that electrostatic charge often builds when magnetic conveyors are used to move metallic parts (¶5-11). The electrostatic charge shorten the lifetime of the magnets in the conveying device (¶6) and this problem is addressed using charge-dissipating coatings or fabrics such as polyamide (¶33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bulk finishing device of Nessar by using the anti-static coated magnetic conveyor belts/slides of Neuhaeuser with the reasonable expectation of having magnetic conveyors that do not suffer from the nesting phenomenon identified by Nessar. The application of a polyamide coating to the magnetic conveyor would facilitate separation of the parts as they moved through the line side the polyamide coating is low friction.
Regarding Clam 12, Nessar in view of Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 11, wherein the slide is removable from a set of non-conducting tank walls to be separately replaceable as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Nessar.
Regarding Claim 15, Nessar in view of Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 11 wherein the magnetic conveyor includes a plurality of permanent magnets as indicated by Nessar in Col 12 Lines 27-49 and by Neuhaeuser in ¶2 and Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Nessar in view of Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 11, wherein the magnetic conveyor includes a plurality of electromagnets as indicated by Nessar in Col 12 Lines 27-49 and by Neuhaeuser in ¶2 and Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, Nessar in view of Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 11, wherein the e-coat process, the plurality of immersion work stations includes, in order clean, rinse, conversion coating, rinse, e-coat, and post rinse workstations as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Nessar and discussed in Col. 5 Lines 30-68 continued on to Col. 6 Lines 1-20.
Regarding Claim 18, , Nessar in view of Komori and Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 11, wherein the curing workstation includes at least a first conveyor and a second conveyor positioned below the first conveyor configured to receive loose work pieces dropped from the end of the first conveyor as depicted in FIG. 3 of Nessar where belt 44 is the first conveyer and the 55 is the second conveyor as a position lower than first conveyer.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessar and Neuhaeuser as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Tirado.
Tirado (“Finding and Installing Liners,” Products Finishing. Published 01 March 2015. https://www.pfonline.com/articles/finding-and-installing-liners#:~:text=A.,the %20permeability %20of%20the%20liner).
Regarding Claim 13, Nessar in view of Neuhaeuser discloses the bulk e-coat system of Claim 12, where the slide (i.e.: magnetic conveyor) is made of a wear resistant material by the low-friction polyamide coating (Neuhaeuser in ¶33). However, the combination of references does not disclose the composition of the electrocoat tank (liner) and therefore does not disclose the wear resistance of the tank walls.
Tirado is a blog post discussing the non-conductive liners used in electrocoat tanks. Tirado indicates these materials are typically polypropylene (PP) or high density polyethylene (HDPE) to render the tank electrically insulating.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the electrocoat tank of Nessar and Neuhaeuser by using the polypropylene or HDPE tank liner of Tirado with the reasonable expectation of making the tank insulating to improve the safety of the whole system.
Since PP and HDPE are known to be impact resistant and not abrasion resistant, the combination of Nessar, Neuhaeuser, and Tirado meet the claim limitation in which the slide has higher abrasion resistance than the tank walls.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessar and Neuhaeuser as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Spodig.
Spodig (US Patent No. 4,236,632) is directed toward a magnetic conveyor belt (title).
Regarding Claim 14, Nessar and Neuhaeuser discloses the e-coat system of Claim 11, but the e-coat bath work does not disclose a workpiece slide with raised sidewalls configured to maintain the work pieces therebetween.
Since the workpiece slide of the combination of Nessar and Neuhaeuser is coated with a low-friction material like polyamide, it is reasonable to expect the coated articles may move around a lot on the slide while being moved through the entire process causing damage to the coated parts. One of ordinary skill would investigate solutions to control the ancillary movements of the workpieces on the magnetic conveyor.
Spodig is also directed toward a magnetic conveyor (title). Spodig indicates that a challenge associated with magnetic conveyor belts is concentration of the field in the center of said belt which may present a challenge to keep large and/or bulky articles firmly magnetized to the belt (Col 1 Lines 7-46). In order to address this deficiency and spread the entire field over the belt (i.e.: the entire coated article), Spodig introduced U-shaped rails that have permanent magnets as depicted in FIG.1 and FIG. 2 This arrangement improves the field strength as explained in Col 2 Lines 21-43 which will better control the position of the bulky workpiece on the magnetic slide during movement.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic slide of Nessar and Neuhaeuser with a U-shaped rail taught by Spodig with the reasonable expectation of improving the quality of the coated articles are they will be held in place more securely due to the presence of the stronger magnetic field.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached on 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794