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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed February 17, 2026.
Claim 1 was amended and claim 11 was added, rendering claims 1-11 pending, with claims 8-10 withdrawn as a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaguchi et al. (JP 2000254518 A).
Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31) along with a zirconium coating (paragraph 49).
Although Kawaguchi does not explicitly disclose the arrangement of the coatings,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the layers, since it has been held that rearranging the layers of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70, as in claim 1. In claim 1, the instant invention includes the preamble language of, “door protection plate''. Although the instant preamble has been considered, the preamble merely recites the intended use of a structure, and the body of the claim is able to stand alone. In claim 1, the phrase, “plurality of holes are each sized to accept at least one fastener” constitutes a “capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 3, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31) where Figure 4d shows holes around a perimeter of the article.
Concerning claim 4, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31). In claim 4, the phrase, “configured to enable fastening the door protection plate to a door” constitutes a ‘capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 5, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31). Because Kitaguchi discloses a substrate with a plurality of holes with a zirconium coating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the coating with similar materials as claimed, to provide corrosion protection. Additionally, in the claim 5, the phrase, “configured to provide corrosion protection” constitutes a ‘capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 6, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31). Because Kitaguchi discloses a substrate with a plurality of holes with a powder coating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the coating with similar materials as claimed, to provide chemical protection. Additionally, in the claim 6, the phrase, “configured to provide chemical protection” constitutes a ‘capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 7, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31). Kitaguchi does not appear to explicitly teach the coatings are disposed inside the plurality of holes, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the coated substrate is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the coated substrate discussed above would be expected to have coatings material dispersed inside the plurality of holes of the substrate.
Concerning claim 11, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31) along with a zirconium coating (paragraph 49). Although Kitaguchi does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating in relation to the holes, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaguchi et al. (JP 2000254518 A) in view of Firstad et al (RU 2363769).
Kitaguchi is taken as above. Kitaguchi does not disclose a galvannel material. Firstad teaches panels of galvanized steel (page 14, lines 52-53) with zirconium coatings and powder coatings (page 13, lines 9-48). Kitaguchi and Firstad are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is powder coatings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the galvanized substrate, as taught in Firstad, for the substrate of Kitaguchi to achieve the predictable result of improving the corrosion resistance of the article, as in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s argument of the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitaguchi et al. (JP 2000254518 A) has been considered, however, is unpersuasive. Applicant argues Kitaguchi does not disclose the claimed invention, as amended. In response to Applicant’s argument, in claim 1, the phrase, “plurality of holes are each sized to accept at least one fastener” constitutes a “capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Additionally, Applicant has added claim 11 to include a door protection plate, wherein the first coating is disposed on the substrate with a greater thickness around the plurality of holes. In response to the newly added claim, Kitaguchi discloses a powder surface coating on a porous substance or a substrate having voids (paragraph 31) along with a zirconium coating (paragraph 49). Although Kitaguchi does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating in relation to the holes, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights