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 .
Response to Amendments
2. This is acknowledgment that the applicant’s response dated 01 December 2025 has been entered into the record. The applicant has cancelled Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. The applicant has added new Claim 21. Currently, Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 21. The applicant’s response is considered fully responsive.
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 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749.
Shinoda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0062357 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrophoretic coating method and electrodeposition coating apparatus (title). Schwartz’749 (US Patent No. 10556749 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a conveyor system including an incrementally adjustable lift frame (title).
Regarding Claim 10, Shinoda et al. discloses a method for coating a product (title and abstract) comprising:
Providing a frame having a first end and a second end and supporting a process track on a portion of the frame (¶101-104; FIG. 5 and FIG. 6);
Extending the process track (i.e.: guide rail 41 in ¶101 and FIG. 5 and FIG. 6) above a product pre-coating treatment station (e.g.: degreasing/A and chemical conversion/B as depicted in FIG. 1), a first product e-coat station (i.e.: electrodeposition area C – section C1 having a first e-coat station; FIG. 1 and FIG. 3), and a second product e-coat station i.e.: electrodeposition area C – section C5 having a second e-coat station FIG. 1 and FIG. 3),
Wherein the product pre-coating treatment station is disposed between the first end and the second end (FIG. 1; FIG. 2; and FIG. 3), wherein the first product e-coat station is disposed between the product pre-coating treatment station and the second end (FIG. 1; FIG. 2; and FIG. 3), and wherein the second product e-coat station is disposed between the product pre-coating treatment station and the second end (FIG. 1; FIG. 2; and FIG. 3).
Shinoda et al. discloses a baking/drying area D that has a baking station D2 which is analogous to the curing station of the instant application (FIG. 1 and FIG. 3). Shinoda et al. further indicates that the automotive body proceeds through the baking area along the guide rail 41 as described for the other areas (A, B, and C) taught by Shinoda et al. which includes both an entrance and an exit (FIG. 3). Shinoda et al. further describes passing the article to be coated through the first rack path (i.e.: the first e-coating station, C1) and then passing the article to be coated through the second rack path (i.e.: the second e-coating station, C5) (FIG. 1 and FIG. 3)
However, Shinoda et al. does not explicitly discuss the selective raising and lowering of the rack with parts to be coated nor the presence of hold ups supported on the frame.
Schwartz’749 discloses a lift assembly that is capable of selectively lowering the articles to be coated (FIG. 2) and selectively raising the articles to be coated (FIG. 1). Schwartz’749 also describes the conveyer system that is capable of moving the article to be coated along conveying path 22 (Col. 7 Lines 17-23) via translatable section 33 (FIG. 1). The system of Schwartz’749 is capable of performing the lifting and lowering of the article to be coated for the product pre-coating treatment station, first product e-coat station, and the second product e-coat station of the instant application. Moreover, Schwartz et al. further described telescoping joints 29 (Col. 5 Lines 22-34 and Col. 11 Lines 33-40) which control the depth of raising and lowering of the articles to be coated. Therefore, this functions as a series of hold ups which prevent the race from being lowering with the process track.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method and apparatus for electrodeposition of Shinoda et al. with the conveyer and lift system described by Schwartz et al. with the reasonable expectation providing improved control over the immersion position of the articles to be coated.
Regarding Claim 11, Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 discloses the method for coating the product of claim 10, further comprising loading the rack onto the process track via a load conveyor (Shinoda et al. in Col. 1 Lines 15-24).
Regarding Claim 12, Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 discloses the method for coating a product of claim 10, further comprising transferring the rack between the process track and the oven track through use of a first actuator and a second actuator by the combination of the hanger 45 moving the rack (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6) with the automotive body into the baking station (Shinoda et al. in ¶145) and the mechanism of conveyance of the rack though the electrocoating line, L, is further described in Shinoda in ¶101-102 where a combination of trollies (front 43 and rear 44) engage with the guide rail 41 via rollers 42.
Regarding Claim 13, Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 discloses the method for coating a product of claim 12 where the structure analogous to the actuators of the instant application are explained above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the first actuator at the entrance of the cure oven and the second actuator at the exit of the cure oven to provide precise control over the residence time of the coated article in the oven to ensure the appropriate degree of cure is obtained to achieve the desired cured film properties.
6. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Schwartz’288.
Shinoda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0062357 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrophoretic coating method and electrodeposition coating apparatus (title). Schwartz’749 (US Patent No. 10556749 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a conveyor system including an incrementally adjustable lift frame (title). Schwartz’288 (US Pub. No. 2022/0090288 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a system for electrocoating conductive substrates having a movable electrode in the tank to coat hollow parts (title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Shinoda et al. and Schwartz’749 disclose the method for coating a product of claim 10, but generally describes the electrocoating of an automotive frame. However, the instant application is directed toward the coating of pipes or articles that have an opening.
Schwartz’288 is directed toward systems and methods of electrocoating using a movable electrode (title and abstract). Schwartz’288 furthers indicates in ¶141 that the movable electrode 200 depicted in FIG. 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D may comprise a plurality of movable electrodes. The movable electrode is analogous to the electrodes described int eh present application as being “selectively insertable into and retractable from the one or more products carried on the rack.” Schwartz’288 further depicts the unexpanded state and expanded states of the expandable electrode 200 in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B (¶29-32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing fate of the claimed inventio to modify the method of coating using the apparatus of Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 with the telescoping anode described in Schwartz’288 with the reasonable expectation of electrodepositing a coating with high precision onto parts with at least one opening (e.g.: a pipe or trailer).
Regarding Claim 15, Shinoda et al. and Schwartz’749 in view of Schwartz’288 discloses the method for coating a product of claim 14, further comprising moveably supporting the electrode rack on a first tank positioned in the first product e-coat station (Shinoda et al.: C1 electrocoat area; FIG. 1 and FIG. 3); moveably supporting the electrode rack on a second tank positioned in the second product e-coat station (Shinoda et al.: C5 electrocoat area FIG. 1 and FIG. 3); dual coating the one or more products carried on the rack by proceeding the rack through the entire first rack path before proceeding the rack through the second rack path (Shinoda et al.: electrodeposition areas C1 and C5; FIG. 1 and FIG. 3).
7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Andreae et al.
Shinoda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0062357 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an electrophoretic coating method and electrodeposition coating apparatus (title). Schwartz’749 (US Patent No. 10556749 B1 – previously presented) is directed towards a conveyor system including an incrementally adjustable lift frame (title). Andreae et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0264302 A1) is directed toward a tilting multiplier (title).
Regarding Claim 21, Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 discloses the method of Claim 10, further comprising operating the first and second series of hold ups from a stationary track supported on a portion of the frame that remains stationary relative to the process track, but not teach operating the first and second series of hold ups includes shuttling a correspond load bar supporting the track onto the stationary track from the process track.
Andreae et al. is directed toward a tilting multiplier for finishing systems (title), e.g.: electrocoat. In particular, Andreae discloses a load bar configured to convey a work piece to a work station (i.e.: a different cleaning or coating or baking process) according to the abstract. The load bar taught by Andreae et al. has a tilting mechanism that is able to ensure that entrapped gas is removed after the parts have been dipped into the electrocoat tank and allows for the liquid to drain after the coating has been complete (¶20). This titling mechanism will improve the quality of the coating and reduce contamination of later rinse stages from carry over from previous stages. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus used for the method of coating disclosed by Shinoda et al. in view of Schwartz’749 with the (titling) load bar disclosed by Andreae et al. with the reasonable expectation of improving the coating quality and liquid coating/cleaning baths since drag in over other stages will be reduced. The modification to the apparatus would be capable of operating the first and second series of hold ups includes shuttling a correspond load bar supporting the track onto the stationary track from the process track.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. Regarding the argument on pg. 6-8 that Shinoda et al. does not disclose two separate tracks for electrodepositing a coating, the examiner does not agree with this conclusion. While it is true that Shinoda et al. does discloses the capability of coating the same articles twice with the same electrocoat composition in the first and second electrocoat tanks. ¶96 also indicates that different electrocoat compositions may also be used. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiners finds that Shinoda et al. does in fact disclose a “first and second rack path.” It appears that the applicant is arguing that the two separate racks paths are different compositions and that a single article would not be electrocoated with both compositions. As such, the applicant should expressly include these limitations into Claim 10. The applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
10. Regarding the arguments on page 8-9 that Schwartz’749 does not teach “preventing a rack from being lowered with the process track,” the examiner does not agree with this contention. Pertaining to the portion of the track that provide depth control (i.e.: controls up and down), this mechanism would inherently or necessarily prevent a rack from being lowered with the process track.
11. The rejections of Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 are maintained from the first office action dated 23 September 2025. The rejection for Claim 21 is explained above.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. 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 at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. 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