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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 drawn to an apparatus and Species A – a dish like supporting element – Claims 1-8 the apparatus and Claim 19 the method, in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 and February 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to search both Groups of inventions. This is not found persuasive because of the different classifications and different search strategies for the various structures.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It should be noted that Applicant has elected the apparatus claims for examination in the response filed September 29, 2025 and the dish like supporting element as the species. As such claims 1-8 read on the apparatus and the elected species. The remaining claims have been withdrawn as to non-elected inventions.
The status of the claims follows.
Claims 1-8 ( conical dish-like supporting element apparatus) under examination.
Claims 9-18 (Coating table apparatus) withdrawn.
Claim 19 (A process using the conical dish-like supporting element) withdrawn.
Claim 20 (A process using the coating table) withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected 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.
Claim 1, line 4, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 1, line 6, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 1, line 10, the phase “may pass” is unclear. Do the particulates and/or contaminants?
Claim 5, line 1, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 5, line 2, the phrase “a has a” is unclear. Should this be “a”?
Claim 6, line 1, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 7, line 1, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 7, line 4, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 7, line 7, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim 8, line 1, “dish-like” is unclear. Is it a dish?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myo et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,745,960) in view of Karpinsky et al. (U.S. PGUB. 2009/0123616 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Myo et al. teach an apparatus for coating rollable elements, the apparatus comprising: a coating subsystem for generating a coating material; a conical, dish-like element for supporting the rolling elements thereon for rolling motion during a coating process while the rolling elements receive the coating material; the conical dish-like element including: a plurality of spaced apart track elements for supporting the rolling elements thereon. (Figs. 20-23B; Fig. 24; Column 17 lines 15-60)
The difference between claim 1 and Myo et al. is that the track elements defining openings between adjacent ones of the track elements through which particulates and/or contaminants may pass during the coating process.
Regarding the track elements defining openings between adjacent ones of the track elements through which particulates and/or contaminants may pass during the coating process (Claim 1), Karpinsky et al. teach in Figs. 3 and 4 openings between tracks for allowing particulates and/or contaminants to pass during coating. (Paragraph 0060 - The tray holes 86 can be provided to remove larger agglomerations of coating (i.e. contaminants or particulates; Figs. 3, 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the track elements comprise circumferential track elements.
Regarding claim 2, Myo et al. teach track elements on the circumference surrounding the center. (Fig. 20, 21)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the circumferential track elements having an inverted V-shape.
Regarding claim 3, Karpinsky et al. teach that track elements can be inverted V shapes. (See Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the circumferential track elements having a rounded upper edge.
Regarding claim 4, Myo et al. teach wherein the circumferential track elements having a rounded upper edge. (Fig. 23A, 23B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the conical dish-like element forms a has a main dish portion forming an angle of 120 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, Myo et al. in Fig. 24 teach wherein the conical dish-like element forms a has a main dish portion forming an angle of 120 degrees. (See Fig. 24)
PNG
media_image1.png
242
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the conical dish-like element further includes a main dish portion and a neck portion, the track elements being located on the main dish portion and the neck portion projecting from the main dish portion and adapted to receive a rotational force to enable the main dish portion to be rotated during the coating process.
Regarding claim 6, Myo et al. teach wherein the conical dish-like element further includes a main dish portion and a neck portion, the track elements being located on the main dish portion and the neck portion projecting from the main dish portion and adapted to receive a rotational force to enable the main dish portion to be rotated during the coating process. (See Fig. 24)
PNG
media_image2.png
698
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motivation for utilizing the features of Karpinsky et al. is that it allows for collecting larger agglomerations of coating. (Paragraph 0060)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Myo et al. by utilizing the features of Karpinsky et al. because it allows for collecting agglomerations of coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7 and 8 are indicted as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein the conical dish-like element further includes: a plurality of openings; and a randomizing motion element carried on the conical dish-like element, and having protrusions which project through the plurality of openings, the plurality of protrusions configured to randomize motion of the rolling elements as the rolling elements impact the protrusions while the conical dish-like element is being rotated during the coating process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
March 18, 2026