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
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the statement “In this case, the process as claimed can be performed by an aluminide coating method.” is flawed and fails to meet the required test under MPEP 806.05 (e), the Examiner makes clear that the process as claimed can be practiced by a materially different apparatus or by hand. The aluminide coating process involves coating the external and internal sections of a component providing a component having an external section and an internal section. The internal section is characterized by one or more internal surfaces defining a first internal cavity and a second internal cavity. The method provides a first elongated member defined at least in part by a size and shape corresponding to the first internal cavity and applying a first aluminum-based slurry onto the first elongated member. The method also provides applying a second aluminum-based slurry onto the second elongated member by introducing the first elongated member into the first internal cavity. Therefore, the legal test of the MPEP is satisfied.
In response to the second argument that the core of claim 1 resides in the precise control required to achieve a specific thickness profile: the ratio of the outer thickness to the inner thickness. One type of aluminide coating is used to coat the external surfaces and a second type of aluminide is used to coat the internal section. With the method of applying coating medium, the first aluminide coating is produced having a first thickness and the second coating is produced at a second thickness. Therefore, the Examiner’s basis for distinctness is not erroneous.
In response to the argument that inaccuracies in the Restriction Requirement with respect to description and classification indicate that the claims were not properly analyzed leading to an unwarranted restriction, are as follows:
a. Examiner is incorrect for characterizing claims 1-10 and 15-19 as “drawn to a method of applying coating medium using an inkjet printer is not accurate because an inkjet printer is not required. Although, an inkjet printer may not be required in claim 1, applicant further limits the system to include an inkjet printer in claim 8. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the restriction still stands.
b. Examiner is incorrect for characterizing claim 11 as “drawn to a control system for application of coating medium. It is obvious that an application of coating medium is controlled. There is not a difference between a control system for application of coating and and therefore is the same as a control system “for” controlling application of a coating medium.
c. Improper classification of the subject matter because a method should not reside in an apparatus classification suggesting an improper grouping or classification for the search. According to the MPEP 902.02(a), many of the definitions have accompanying notes to help a user reach a decision either to exclude or include an area containing relevant subject matter. Search notes are not exhaustive and do not limit the search but suggest additional fields of search. In this case, there are search notes that classify the processes for applying liquids or other fluent materials to surfaces in general B05D. This class area was not excluded and therefore is not an improper classification of the subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the restriction stands.
d. An apparatus (control system) should not reside in a process classification, suggesting an improper grouping or classification for the search. As stated above, according to the MPEP 902.02(a), many of the definitions have accompanying notes to help a user reach a decision either to exclude or include an area containing relevant subject matter. Search notes are not exhaustive and do not limit the search but suggest additional fields of search. In this case, there are search notes that classify the apparatus for applying liquids or other fluent materials to surfaces in general B05B13/00. This class area was not excluded and therefore is not an improper classification of the subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the restriction stands.
e. Examiner is incorrect in asserting that claims 12-14 are “drawn to a coating system or application of coating medium using an inkjet printer”. The coating system of claim 12 comprises a control system and a printhead. Devices that use printheads span from everyday home printers to high-speed industrial presses. Applicant further limits the system to include an inkjet printer in claim 13. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and therefore, the restriction stands.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 does not disclose further comprising applying coating medium to the outer region such that a protruding wall is formed at the edge, the protruding wall extending in a thickness direction above adjacent coating medium in the outer region.
Vronsky teaches a lip or capillary ridge [see point 759 of curve 757; Para. 0097] protruding in a thickness direction.
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.
In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to extend the protruding wall above adjacent coating, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)
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 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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights