Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,986

Method of Manufacturing Coat Body and Apparatus of Manufacturing Coat Body

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
THOMAS, BINU
Art Unit
1717
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Japan Steel Works, Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
582 granted / 804 resolved
+7.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 804 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 4, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 4, 2025 was received. Claim 10 was amended. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued February 13, 2025. Drawings The drawings were received on July 17, 2025. These drawings are acceptable. Claim Interpretation This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: carry-out unit in claim 1; first coating unit in claim 1; carry in unit in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi, Wang and Sabatka on claims 10 and 15-20 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended. Claims 10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi (US 2010/0058609) in view of Wang (US 2016/0020454) and Barnes (US 3,509,851). In regards to claim 10, Taguchi teaches a manufacturing apparatus (10) for coating a web (12, base member) comprising: a delivery apparatus (14, carry-out unit) unloads the substrate (10, base member) (fig. 1; para. 63-64); a first coating apparatus (18, first coating unit) applies an imaging layer coating liquid (first coat liquid) onto a first surface of the web (fig. 1; para. 63-64, 66); a second coating apparatus (22, second coating unit) applies an overcoat layer (second coat liquid) onto the coated web (fig. 1; para. 63, 66, 68); a drying apparatus (24, dryer) dries the coating applied on the web (fig. 1; para. 63, 68); a taking-up apparatus (26, carry-in unit) takes up the coated web (fig. 1; para. 63); where the first coating apparatus applies the imaging layer coating liquid (first coat liquid) onto the first surface of the web (fig. 1; para. 63-64, 66), and the second coating apparatus is capable of being a spray coating to apply the overcoat layer (second coat liquid) onto the coated web(fig. 1; para. 63, 66, 68). Taguchi does not explicitly teach the second coating apparatus atomizes liquid. However, Wang teaches material spray deposition system (100) comprising a material electrospray dispenser assembly (120) which comprises a plurality of nozzles (104) which atomizes a liquid which is applied onto the substrate (102) (fig. 1-2; para. 30, 32-35, 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the electrospray dispenser assembly of Wang onto at least the second coating apparatus of Taguchi because Wang teaches it will provide rapid deposition with good uniformity (para. 44). Taguchi and Wang do not explicitly teach the second coating unit includes a first chamber in which a nozzle for atomizing the second coat liquid is arranged; a second chamber in which an air nozzle is disposed; and a third chamber in which another air nozzle is disposed, wherein the second chamber is disposed between the first chamber and the carry-in unit; the third chamber is disposed between the carry-out unit and the first chamber, each of the first, second, and third chambers including an inlet through which the base member enters the chamber and an outlet through which the base member exits the chamber as it is conveyed from the carry-out unit to the carry-in unit, the air nozzle in the second chamber is disposed so as to be inclined relative to a direction perpendicular to the base member, and positioned so as to spray air directly at the outlet of the first chamber to form an air curtain at the inlet of the second chamber and suppress leakage of the second coat liquid from the first chamber into the second chamber, and the air nozzle in the third chamber is disposed so as to be inclined relative to the direction perpendicular to the base member, and positioned so as to spray air directly at the inlet of the first chamber to form an air curtain at the outlet of the third chamber and suppress leakage of the second coat liquid from the first chamber into the third chamber. However, Barnes teaches a spraying apparatus (10) comprising: a nozzle (13) within an inner shield (47, first chamber) (fig. 1, 4; col 3, lines 20-30, col. 3, line 74- col. 4, line 5); an upper jet-124 (air nozzle) is within a hood-94 (second chamber), is inclined relative to a direction perpendicular to the wire (25), where the upper jet-124 is positioned to direct air towards funnel-65 that is at the outlet of the hood-94 and inlet of inner shield, capable of forming an air curtain at the outlet of the hood-94 and suppressing leakage of movement of fluid from inner shield to hood-94(fig. 1, 4; col. 4, line 70- col. 5, line 5); an upper jet-123 (air nozzle) is within a hood-93 (third chamber), is inclined relative to a direction perpendicular to the wire (25), where the upper jet-123 is positioned to direct air towards funnel-64 that is at the inlet of the hood-93 and outlet of inner shield, capable of forming an air curtain at the inlet of the hood-93 and outlet of the inner shield and capable of suppressing movement of fluid from inner shield to hood-93 (fig. 1, 4; col. 4, line 70- col. 5, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, to incorporate the inner shield, upper jets and hoods around the inner shield of Barnes onto the second coating apparatus of Taguchi and Wang because Barnes teaches it will confine overspray which will aid in providing an even coating (abstract; col. 1, lines 35-40). In regards to claim 13, Taguchi, Wang and Barnes as discussed, where Wang teaches the electrospray dispenser assembly is connected to a first circuit arrangement (232) and a power source (220) to apply a voltage between about 5-kV to 50-kV (fig. ; para. 47). In regards to claim 14, Taguchi, Wang and Barnes as discussed, where Barnes teaches the outlet of the upper jet is inclined so that air is direct at an inclined angle greater than 0.1-degress (fig. 1). In regards to claims 15-17, these claims recite limitation directed to the particular type of substrate or processing materials, where the recitations of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114). The apparatus of Taguchi, Wang and Barnes teach the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of employing the claimed processing materials claims 15 and 17, and process found in claim 16. In regards to claims 19-20, Taguchi, Wang and Barnes as discussed, Barnes teaches the inclination angle of the outlets of the upper jets (air nozzles) in the hoods are the same (fig. 4). Taguchi, Wang and Barnes does not explicitly teach the inclination angle of the outlet of the upper jet-124 (air nozzle) in the hood-94 (second chamber) is different from an inclination angle of the outlet of the upper jet-123 (air nozzle) in the hood-93 (third chamber). However, having different orientations for the upper jets represent an obvious adjustment of parts that would not alter the operation of the apparatus in a patentably distinct manner or produce any new and unexpected benefit over the prior art structure (see MPEP 2144.04). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see response filed September 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 10 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 Taguchi, Wang and Barnes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT. 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. /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 07, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601053
DOG BONE EXHAUST SLIT TUNNEL FOR PROCESSING CHAMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600147
PRETREATMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594596
MICRODROPLET-BASED THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) LASER PRINTING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594568
LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS, LIQUID DISCHARGE METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589586
POST-PRINT VACUUM DEGASSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 804 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month