DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 were amended. Claims 1-11 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “flanged surface” and “surface adjacent to a flanged surface” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Elements in Figs.3B and 7 are difficult to see. Clarification is recommended.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “flanged surface” and “surface adjacent to a flanged surface” in claim 1.
Paragraphs 5 and 58 include the term “inert”. Replacement with the term “insert” is suggested.
The specification should be reviewed for other minor edits and non-idiomatic English.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 has been interpreted as a dependent claim since claim 9 refers to claim 1 and the patent application fee determination record indicates only two independent claims (claim 1 and 12) at the time of calculation on August 28, 2023. See also Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (see MPEP 2173.05(f)).
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 9 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 3-5 and 7-8.
For the purpose of examination, each of claims 3-5 and 7-8 is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, according to the range(s) of the broad recitation(s). This interpretation is the same as before this amendment to claims 3-5 and 7-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20150072077, already of record) in view of Fork (US 20090057944) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20150072077, already of record) in view of Domenighi (US 20200139395 A1) .
The limitation “two-tier step” has been interpreted in light of the specification to refer to a shape having a first (lower) depth and a second (upper depth) (Spec., para 0055; Fig. 5D).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hartman teaches an insert for a vacuum coating machine, the insert comprising:
a body (115) having a flow channel (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the flow channel including a staging chamber (125), a delivery channel (127), and a nozzle (131) (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the nozzle (131) including a nozzle exit configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a surface (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6).
Hartman does not explicitly teach the nozzle (131) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a flanged surface.
However, Domenighi teaches a nozzle (200) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit (220) configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a flanged surface (190), wherein the two-tier step includes an angled surface (portion of 250 between surface of 250 facing outward in Fig. 1a ie top surface of 250 and back surface 250 in Fig. 1B) between a first tier (bottom of 220 in Fig. 1A) and a second tier (top of 250 in Fig. 1a), for the benefit of allowing the nozzle to be with used panels of different thickness so that the nozzle adapts to the variability in thickness and provide a smoothly curved finish to the coating. (See Domenighi, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs, 4, 16-19, and 22.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle (131) in Hartman to have a two-tier step, as taught by Domenighi , enabling the nozzle to be with used panels of different thickness so that the nozzle adapts to the variability in thickness and provide a smoothly curved finish to the coating. (See Domenighi, Abstract, paragraph 19.)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hartman in view of Domenighi do not explicitly teach that the two-tier step has a maximum depth of between 0.1 in and 0.3 in, or a maximum height of between 0.2 in and 0.5 in.
However, Hartman further teaches providing inserts configured with a shape to match the profile of the workpiece (see para 0029) to cover edges of the workpiece (see para 0027). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of the previous art combination above according to the claimed dimensions, for the benefit of matching the profile of the workpiece to cover edges of the workpiece.
Applicant’s specification fails to disclose that the claimed dimensions are patentably significant and further discloses “other dimensions are possible” (Spec., 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 5, Hartman in view of Domenighi do not explicitly teach that the two-tier step has a lower depth of between 0.05 in and 0.15 in, and an upper depth of between 0.05 in and 0.15 in.
However, Hartman further teaches providing inserts configured with a shape to match the profile of the workpiece (see para 0029) to cover edges of the workpiece (see para 0027). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of the previous art combination above according to the claimed dimensions, for the benefit of matching the profile of the workpiece to cover edges of the workpiece.
Applicant’s specification fails to disclose that the claimed dimensions are patentably significant and further discloses “other dimensions are possible” (Spec., 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 6, Hartman further teaches that the nozzle exit has a height side and a length side, the height side substantially matching the height of an edge of a tile being coated (para 0029).
Regarding claim 9, Hartman teaches an insert for a vacuum coating machine, the insert comprising:
a body (115) having a flow channel (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the flow channel including a staging chamber (125), a delivery channel (127), and a nozzle (131) (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the nozzle (131) including a nozzle exit configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a surface (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6).
Hartman further teaches matching the nozzle height and a flange height corresponding to the profile of the workpiece (para 0029).
Hartman does not explicitly teach the nozzle (131) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit.
However, Domenighi teaches a nozzle (220) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit (220) configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a surface (190), for the benefit of allowing the nozzle to be with used panels of different thickness so that the nozzle adapts to the variability in thickness and provide a smoothly curved finish to the coating. (See Domenighi, Abstract, paragraph 19.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle (220) in Hartman to have a two-tier step, as taught by Domenighi, for the benefit of allowing the nozzle to be with used panels of different thickness so that the nozzle adapts to the variability in thickness and provide a smoothly curved finish to the coating. (See Domenighi, Abstract, paragraph 19.)
The recitation “a tile, the tile including a first surface, a second surface, the first surface and the second surface being substantially parallel to one another, an edge connecting the first surface to the second surface, and a flange formed in the edge, the flange having a flange depth that is substantially parallel to the first surface and to the second surface and a flange height that is substantially perpendicular to the first surface and to the second surface” does not further structurally or mechanically limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115). The insert of the prior art combination of Hartman and Fork would be capable of coating various objects, including the claimed tile, since Hartman and Fork disclose every necessary structural feature of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as mentioned above, these limitations do not further structurally or mechanically limit the claimed apparatus since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115). The insert of the prior art combination of Hartman and Fork would be capable of coating various objects, including the claimed tile, since Hartman and Fork disclose every necessary structural feature of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20150072077, already of record) in view of Domenighi (US 20200139395 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Fork (US 20090057944).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hartman in view of Domenighi does not show the flow channel includes a turn upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees
Fork show the flow channel includes a turn upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees (Fork: Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a turn upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees, because Fork teaches this would allow the adhesive to have the desired shape on the substrate and preventing delamination. (See Fork, Abstract, paragraphs 9-10. )
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20150072077, already of record) in view of Domenighi (US 20200139395 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Wilkens (US 20090057944).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hartman in view of Domenighi does not show the flow channel includes a turn upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees
Wilkens is directed to applying a sealant at a first secondary portion at a first height and a second secondary portion at a second height less than the first height. (See Wilkens, paragraph 3.)
Wilkens show the flow channel includes a turn (turns inside 522 in a first direction) upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees (turns inside 522 in a first direction) and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees(turns inside 522 in a first direction) (See Wilkens, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 15, 46-49, and Fig. 12.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a turn upstream of the nozzle, the turn including a first side having an angle at 90 degrees and a second side having an angle of between 115-130 degrees, because Wilkens teaches this structure would enable the nozzle to be selectively adjusted to the surface for engaging more surfaces of the target areas. (See Wilkens, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 15, 46-49, and Figs. 1-2 and 5-12.)
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20150072077, already of record) in view of Hayes (US 5,954,877) .
The limitation “two-tier step” has been interpreted in light of the specification to refer to a shape having a first (lower) depth and a second (upper depth) (Spec., para 0055; Fig. 5D).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hartman teaches an insert for a vacuum coating machine, the insert comprising:
a body (115) having a flow channel (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the flow channel including a staging chamber (125), a delivery channel (127), and a nozzle (131) (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6);
the nozzle (131) including a nozzle exit configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a surface (para 0048-0049; Figs. 5 and 6).
Hartman does not explicitly teach the nozzle (131) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a flanged surface.
However, Hayes teaches a nozzle (11) including a two-tier step proximate a nozzle exit (58) configured to apply a coating out of the flow channel and onto a flanged surface (190), wherein the two-tier step includes an angled surface (top of 88) between a first tier (top of 88 in Fig. 12) and a second tier (top of 84 in Fig. 12), for the benefit of reducing formation of bubbles and turbulence. (See Hayes, Abstract, col. 8, lines 30-40.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle (131) in Hartman to have a two-tier step, as taught by Hayes , enabling the nozzle to be with used panels of different thickness so that the nozzle adapts to the variability in thickness and provide a smoothly curved finish to the coating. (See Hayes, Abstract, col. 5, lines 17-55, col. 8, lines 19-40 and Figs. 1-12.)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hartman in view of Hayes do not explicitly teach that the two-tier step has a maximum depth of between 0.1 in and 0.3 in, or a maximum height of between 0.2 in and 0.5 in.
However, Hartman further teaches providing inserts configured with a shape to match the profile of the workpiece (see para 0029) to cover edges of the workpiece (see para 0027). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of the previous art combination above according to the claimed dimensions, for the benefit of matching the profile of the workpiece to cover edges of the workpiece.
Applicant’s specification fails to disclose that the claimed dimensions are patentably significant and further discloses “other dimensions are possible” (Spec., 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 5, Hartman in view of Hayes do not explicitly teach that the two-tier step has a lower depth of between 0.05 in and 0.15 in, and an upper depth of between 0.05 in and 0.15 in.
However, Hartman further teaches providing inserts configured with a shape to match the profile of the workpiece (see para 0029) to cover edges of the workpiece (see para 0027). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of the previous art combination above according to the claimed dimensions, for the benefit of matching the profile of the workpiece to cover edges of the workpiece.
Applicant’s specification fails to disclose that the claimed dimensions are patentably significant and further discloses “other dimensions are possible” (Spec., 0053-0056).
Regarding claim 6, Hartman further teaches that the nozzle exit has a height side and a length side, the height side substantially matching the height of an edge of a tile being coated (para 0029).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights