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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Klinkowski (US 3,945,900 cited in IDS).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/010,173 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are anticipated by copending 18/010,173.
Instant Application 17/920,450
Conflicting Application 18/010,173
1. (Currently Amended) Treatment plant for treating workpieces, comprising: treatment stations for treating the workpieces, wherein each treatment station includes at least one treatment container surrounding a treatment chamber for accommodating the workpieces, wherein each treatment station separately, or one or more treatment stations jointly, include a fluid tank for accommodating a fluid which is a liquid, and wherein the treatment stations include a fluid guide, by which the fluid can be guided a) from the fluid tank into the respective treatment container to flood one or more treatment chambers; and/or b) from the respective treatment container into the fluid tank to empty the treatment chambers, and wherein the treatment chamber is configured to be filled with the fluid during flooding to a maximum filling-height selected according to a workpiece geometry and/or position.
1. (Previously Presented) Treatment station for treating workpieces, the treatment station comprising: a treatment container surrounding a treatment chamber for accommodating the workpieces, a fluid tank for receiving a fluid, which is a liquid, and a fluid guide, by which the fluid can be guided a) from the fluid tank into the treatment container to flood the treatment chamber; and/or b) from the treatment container into the fluid tank to empty the treatment chamber, wherein the fluid tank is arranged above the treatment container in relation to a direction of gravity, wherein the treatment station has a counter-tank which is arranged below the treatment chamber and to which the fluid to be discharged from the treatment chamber can be fed, and wherein the treatment chamber is configured to be filled with the liquid during flooding to a maximum filling-height selected according to a workpiece geometry and/or position.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinkowski (US 3,945,900 cited in IDS), in further view of H0161261 (machine translation cited in IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Klinkowski figure 1 teaches a treatment plant for treating workpieces, comprising:
treatment station (10 electrophoretic deposition system) for treating the workpieces (14 anode member, the article to be coated),
wherein each treatment station includes at least one treatment container (12 electrodeposition tank) surrounding a treatment chamber (28 anode chamber) for accommodating the workpieces,
wherein each treatment station separately, or one or more treatment stations jointly, include a fluid tank (34 holding tank) for accommodating a fluid, and
wherein the treatment stations include a fluid guide (32 conduit) by which the fluid can be guided
b) from the respective treatment container into the fluid tank to empty the treatment chamber, and wherein the treatment chamber is configured to be filled with the fluid during flooding to a maximum filling height (26 fluid level).[col 5 lines 5-45]
Klinkowski is silent to the filling height being selected according to a workpiece geometry and/ or position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select the maximum filling height being according to a workpiece geometry and/ or position to avoid using more coating material than necessary.
Klinkowski is silent to more than one treatment station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a plurality of treatment chambers as a duplication of parts is an obvious modification.(MPEP 2144.04)
Klinkowski is silent to a fluid guide which a) a) from the fluid tank into the respective treatment container to flood one or more treatment chambers.
JP H0161261 is directed towards surface treating equipment where figures 1-2 teach a supply pipe 7 for supplying liquid to the chamber 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a supply pipe as taught in JP H0161261 to supply coating liquid to the chamber of Klinkowski.
Regarding claim 7, JP H0161261 teaches the fluid guide is connected to a cleaning device (14 strainer) so that the fluid can be cleaned after removal from one of the treatment chambers and/or before a new feeding to a further one of the treatment chambers.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention for a total quantity of a fluid contained overall in a fluid guide is at most twice a quantity of the fluid required for performing a single flooding process in a treatment chamber through routine optimization and experimentation.(MPEP 2144.06)
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide treatment stations of a treatment unit, and in particular one or more or all first treatment stations and one or more or all second treatment stations of a treatment unit, are arranged on a common level of the treatment plant as a rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification.(MPEP 2144.04)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinkowski (US 3,945,900 cited in IDS) and JP H0161261 (machine translation cited in IDS), and in further view of Kruezer (US 2003/0213429 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, JP H0161261 teaches the invention relates to a surface treatment apparatus for pouring a pretreatment liquid or a cleaning liquid onto an object to be coated passing through a pretreatment chamber or a washing chamber provided in a coating line thereby reading on the treatment plant includes several first treatment stations for performing a first treatment step and several second treatment stations for performing a second treatment step.
JP H0161261 fails to explicitly teach wherein one or more first treatment stations and one or more second treatment stations respectively are part of or form a treatment unit of the treatment plant that is passed through by the workpieces in order to perform the treatment steps.
Kreuzer is directed towards a device and method for the surface treatment of workpieces wherein a plurality of treatment basins 1 to 9 are arranged one behind the other. The basins shown therein are filled with various treatment liquids. So, in one treatment basin a dip coating is for example performed, the other basins contain special, per se known treatment liquids for a pretreatment or an aftertreatment.[0025]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a system as taught in Kreuzer to continuously treat vehicle bodies.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinkowski (US 3,945,900 cited in IDS) and JP H0161261 (machine translation cited in IDS) and Kruezer (US 2003/0213429 cited in IDS), and in further view of Nishimura (US 5,100,516 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Kreuzer teaches a plurality of treatment basins 1 to 9 are arranged one behind the other. The basins shown therein are filled with various treatment liquids. So, in one treatment basin a dip coating is for example performed, the other basins contain special, per se known treatment liquids for a pretreatment or an aftertreatment.
However, JP H0161261 in view of Kreuzer is silent to the treatment plant includes several treatment units which respectively include one or more first treatment stations and one or more second treatment stations, a) wherein one or more first treatment stations of distinct treatment units have a common fluid guide and/or a common fluid tank; and/or b) wherein one or more second treatment stations of distinct treatment units have a common fluid guide and/or a common fluid tank.[0025]
Nishimura is directed towards a high volume workpiece treating system Nishimura teaches the auxiliary equipment 220 for the treating stations 21,22 would include a liquid solution holding tank, conduits, valves, pumps, control apparatus and the like for ensuring that the treating cells 21,22 are sequentially provided with appropriate treating solution at the appropriate time during each treating procedure for workpieces 10. Treating station 3 is a water wash station through which all workpieces 10 are moved as they progress through the horizontally arranged treating stations 2-8 thereby suggesting the treatment plant includes several treatment units which respectively include one or more first treatment stations and one or more second treatment stations and which in particular form distinct treatment lines of the treatment plant,
a) wherein one or more first treatment stations of distinct treatment units have a common fluid guide and/or a common fluid tank; and/or
b) wherein one or more second treatment stations of distinct treatment units have a common fluid guide and/or a common fluid tank.[col 3 lines 30-45]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a system as taught Nishimura to process workpieces efficiently and at a high volume.[col 2 lines 18-20]
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura teaches treating station 2 is a degreasing station and includes a plurality of vertically spaced treating stations 21,22 for workpieces 10. The auxiliary equipment 220 for the treating stations 21,22 would include a liquid solution holding tank, conduits, valves, pumps, control apparatus and the like for ensuring that the treating cells 21,22 are sequentially provided with appropriate treating solution at the appropriate time during each treating procedure for workpieces 10 thereby suggesting a fluid, and in particular a first treatment fluid, can be fed, by the fluid guide, first
a) to one or more treatment chambers of one or more treatment stations, and in particular first treatment stations, of a first treatment unit, and thereafter
b) to one or more treatment chambers of one or more treatment stations, and in particular first treatment stations, of a second treatment unit.
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches treating station 4, like station 2, includes its own auxiliary equipment 240 corresponding to equipment 220 associated with treating station 2, except that the liquid solution circulating through the treating cells 200 at station 4 comprise etching solution suitable for surface treating workpieces 10 in preparation for a succeeding treating step. Like auxiliary equipment 220, auxiliary equipment 240 is capable of providing solution to each row of cells 41,42 in a predetermined cycle so that a single row of cells can be supplied with solution while another row is idle thereby reading on a fluid, and in particular a second treatment fluid, can be fed, by the fluid guide, first
a) to one or more treatment chambers of one or more treatment stations, and in particular second treatment stations, of a first treatment unit, and thereafter
b) to one or more treatment chambers of one or more treatment stations, and in particular second treatment stations, of a second treatment unit.[col 4 lines 5-15]
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches utilization of a single supply tank at apparatus 220 with a plurality of treating cells 21,22 operating such that processing is taking place in one set of treating cells 21 while the other treating cells 22 are idle, enables the size of the auxiliary equipment 220 to be reduced as compared with prior art treating systems wherein separate supply tanks and control systems are required for each line of treating cells thereby suggesting the fluid can alternately be fed, by means of the fluid guide, to treatment chambers of distinct treatment units.[col 3 lines 54-62]
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura teaches treating station 2 is a degreasing station and includes a plurality of vertically spaced treating stations 21,22 for workpieces 10. As illustrated, each treating station 21,22 may accommodate and treat six workpieces 10 simultaneously within treating cells 200 through which or to which liquid chemical solution is circulated by means of auxiliary equipment 220 (see FIG. 3) via appropriate inlet and outlet conduit connections (not illustrated) connected to the cells thereby reading on several treatment units of the treatment plant are arranged on distinct levels of the treatment plant.
Regarding claim 11, Nishimura figure 3 teaches auxiliary equipment 220 for the treating stations 21,22 would include a liquid solution holding tank, conduits, valves, pumps, control apparatus and the like for ensuring that the treating cells 21,22 are sequentially provided with appropriate treating solution at the appropriate time during each treating procedure for workpieces 10 thereby reading on one or more treatment stations of distinct treatment units of the treatment plant, which have a common fluid guide and/or which serve to perform the same treatment step, are arranged one above the other along a direction of gravity (g).
Regarding claim 12, Nishimura figure 3 teaches the treatment plant includes several fluid guides (220, 240, 260 auxiliary equipment) for guiding distinct treatment fluids, wherein the fluid guides are assigned to distinct treatment stations for performing different treatment steps.
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 CRISTI J TATE-SIMS whose telephone number is (571)272-1722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
CRISTI J. TATE-SIMS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/CRISTI J TATE-SIMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711