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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6 and 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/3/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-5 and 7-16 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is burdensome. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not pointed out how the restriction is improper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bublitz et al. (WO2020/083540, of which reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, Bublitz teaches a method of lubricating both sides of a metal sheet material (abstract) by electrostatic coating comprising: continuously moving the sheet along a first direction (page 9); operating a print nozzle (bottom of page 9 to page 10) to deposit the lubricant on the sheet (page 9) while moving the sheet along the first direction (page 9 and Figure 2), where the nozzle ejects the lubricant in a second direction transverse to the first direction (Figures 1 and 2) and towards a top side or both a top side and bottom side of the sheet (page 9); wherein the lubricant can be charged before it is ejected from the nozzle (page 10) and also exposed to an electric field after passing through the nozzle to attract the particles to the sheet (bottom of page 10). Bublitz further teaches adjusting the velocity of the charged droplets by controlling the external electric field (page 10). Bublitz teaches all the critical limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7; therefore, Bublitz anticipates the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz in view of Kulothungan et al. (“Assessment of factors influencing the transfer efficiency in electrostatic spray coating process”).
Regarding claim 3, Bublitz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fails to teach a strength of the electric field is controlled based on the speed of the sheet. However, Kulothungan teaches that adjusting the electric field in electrostatic coating changes the transfer efficiency and reduces the time necessary for a coating process (see Conclusions section). Kulothungun makes clear that the electric field is a result-effective variable and would necessarily need to be controlled based on the moving speed of the sheet. For example, if the electric field is too low the coating time increases and if the speed the sheet is moving is fast, then a uniform coating would not be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the strength of the electric field based on the speed of the sheet through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
3. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz.
Regarding claim 8, Bublitz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), including teaching optimizing the electric field to optimize the coating process (see above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range for the electric field through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
4. Claim(s) 9-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz in view of Liu et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0105482).
I. Regarding claims 9-11, Bublitz teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the charged droplets are charged with a positive charge in the range as claimed. However, Liu teaches a similar electrostatic coating process wherein coating material droplets are charged and directed towards a substrate to be coated (abstract). Additionally, Liu teaches the droplets are provided with a positive charge (Figure 3) of 10 kV (0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bublitz’s process by providing the droplets with a positive charge in an amount of 10 kV as disclosed by Liu. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Liu teaches that providing positively charged droplets as disclosed prevents the droplets from coalescing before contacting the substrate and provides an improved surface coating (0054).
II. Regarding claims 12, 13 and 15, Bublitz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), including both charging the lubricant and creating an external electric field and a print nozzle below the sheet, but fails to teach the use of two charging devices. However, Liu teaches a similar electrostatic coating process wherein coating material droplets are charged and directed towards a substrate to be coated (abstract). Additionally, Liu teaches that two different charging devices can be used for both charging the droplets and creating an external electric field (0047-0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bublitz’s process by using a first charging device for charging the lubricant and a second charging device for generating an external electric field similar to Liu’s teachings. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for individual control of the lubricant charge as well as the electric field charge to better optimize the lubricant deposition process.
5. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bublitz in view of Liu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kulothungan.
Regarding claim 14, Bublitz in view of Liu make obvious all the limitations of claim 13 (see above), but fail to teach a strength of the electric field is controlled based on the speed of the sheet. However, Kulothungan teaches that adjusting the electric field in electrostatic coating changes the transfer efficiency and reduces the time necessary for a coating process (see Conclusions section). Kulothungun makes clear that the electric field is a result-effective variable and would necessarily need to be controlled based on the moving speed of the sheet. For example, if the electric field is too low the coating time increases and if the speed the sheet is moving is fast, then a uniform coating would not be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the strength of the electric field based on the speed of the sheet through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 6 and 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
September 3, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights