Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/691,494

Method Of Applying Coating Medium, Coated Object, Control System And Coating System

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Examiner
MCMILLION, TRACEY M
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
ABB Schweiz AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
545 granted / 623 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
657
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.2%
+16.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 623 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 without traverse of claims 11-14 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. 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 4 and 16 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. With regard to claims 4 and 16, it is unclear to examiner how a protruding wall is formed at the edge when applying coating medium to the outer region when the outer region forms the edge and the recited in claim 1. It is also unclear whether the protruding wall protrudes relative to the surface or the inner region. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0266957). With regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a method of applying coating medium to a surface of an object [Abstract], the method comprising: applying coating medium (LD) [Para. 0073] to an inner region (R1) [first region; Para. 0075] of the surface such that the coating medium on the inner region has an inner thickness [thickness of a thin film is formed in the first region; Para.0063] and applying coating medium (LD) [Para. 0073] to an outer region (R2) [second region; Para. 0063] of the surface, adjacent to the inner region [Fig. 10], to form an edge of the coating medium at a side of the outer region opposite to the inner region [Fig. 10] and such that the coating medium on the outer region has an outer thickness [Fig. 10], and wherein a maximum value of the outer thickness is equal to or less than the inner thickness [Fig. 10]. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum value of the outer thickness is 30% to 80% of the inner thickness. However, Lee teaches print density of the second region may vary according to a position i.e. decrease the edge [Para. 0063]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the maximum value and the minimum value to be equal to or less than or 30 -80 % of the inner thickness for the purpose of controlling film thickness distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With regard to claim 2, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Lee also discloses wherein the minimum value of the outer thickness is at least 40 %, such as at least 50 %, of the inner thickness. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum value of the outer thickness is at least 40 %, such as at least 50 % of the inner thickness. However, Lee teaches print density of the second region may vary according to a position i.e. decrease the edge [Para. 0063]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the maximum value and the minimum value to be equal to or less than or 30 -80 % of the inner thickness for the purpose of controlling film thickness distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With regard to claims 3 and 15, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 respectively, and Lee also discloses wherein the outer thickness decreases from the inner region towards the edge [Fig. 7, Fig. 10]. With regard to claims 5 and 17, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively, and Lee also discloses wherein the coating medium is applied to the outer region by using a noise pattern. [ink dots are partially thinned out; Fig. 7] With regard to claim 6, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and Lee also discloses wherein the noise pattern comprises includes blue noise [ink dots are uniform in each outer position; Fig. 7]. With regard to claim 7, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and Lee also discloses wherein the noise pattern has a gradually decreasing density from the inner region towards the edge [print density varies according to position; Para. 0008; Fig. 10]. With regard to claims 8 and 18, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 and Lee also discloses wherein the coating medium is applied by an inkjet printer [Para. 0059]. With regard to claim 10, Lee discloses an object [substrate; Para. 0026] having a surface to which a coating medium [printing material; Para. 0026] is applied by a method including the steps of: applying coating medium (LD) to a surface of an object [Abstract], the method comprising: applying coating medium (LD) to an inner region (R1) [first region; Para. 0075]of the surface such that the coating medium on the inner region has an inner thickness [thickness of a thin film is formed in the first region; Para.0063]; applying coating medium (LD) to an outer region (R2) [second region; Para. 0063] of the surface, adjacent to the inner region to form an edge of the coating medium at a side of the outer region opposite to the inner region [Fig. 10] and wherein a maximum value of the outer thickness is equal to or less than the inner thickness [Fig. 10]. Lee does not explicitly disclose the coating medium on the outer region has an outer thickness wherein a minimum value of the outer thickness is 30 % to 80 % of the inner thickness. However, Lee teaches print density of the second region may vary according to a position i.e. decrease the edge [Para. 0063]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the maximum value and the minimum value to be equal to or less than or 30 -80 % of the inner thickness for the purpose of controlling film thickness distribution. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim(s) 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0266957) as applied to claims 1 and 2, respectively, above, and further in view of Vronsky (US 2017/140999). With regard to claims 4 and 16, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose further comprising applying coating medium to the outer region such that a protruding wall is formed at the edge. However, Vronsky teaches a lip or capillary ridge [see point 759 of curve 757; Para. 0097]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the coating medium to the outer region forming a protruding wall for the purpose of adjusting edge buildup at layer boundaries, providing uniform layer thickness or surface or smoothing or enhancing transitions. Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0266957) as applied to claims 1 and 2, respectively, above, and further in view of Inagaki (US 2013/089664. With regard to claims 9 and 19, Lee’s method discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the coating medium is applied to the inner region and to the outer region with a single stroke of a printhead. However, Inagaki teaches discharging the droplets from the nozzles to the substrate while rotating the substrate. [Para. 0009] It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the coating medium to the inner region and to the outer region of Lee with a single stroke of a printhead as taught by Inagaki for the purpose of making the film substantially uniform over the substrate surface and making the surface of the film smoother. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM EST. 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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. /TRACEY M MCMILLION/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600153
PRINTING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING PRINTED MATTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594771
IMAGE RECORDING DEVICE INCLUDING THERMAL HEAD AND READER POSITIONED DOWNSTREAM OF THERMAL HEAD IN CONVEYING DIRECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594775
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577729
PRESERVATION OF MOISTURE EVAPORATION AND BODY TEMPERATURE REGULATION PROPERTIES ON GARMENTS POST PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578668
EXPOSURE HEAD AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+2.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 623 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