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 of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 30, 2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “permeable bottom”, “permeable cover” in claim 2, “a controlled atmosphere on demand” in claim 7 and reference numerals for “solvent valve” and ”resin valve” in claim 11 and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and top felt ”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “and the top felt”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each wiping zone … and top ”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “each of said wiping zones … and a top”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and wiping section”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “ and the wiping section”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “solvent valve, resin tank with resin valve… on the input”.
A suggested revision is as follows: “a solvent valve, a resin tank with a resin valve… on [[the]] an input of the density meter and an input of the level meter”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits).
Regarding claim 1, Ranganathan teaches an apparatus for coating one or more, plane parallel wires (512) with a resin solution, wherein said apparatus comprises an applicator (601) and a wiping section (air wipe). (See Ranganathan, Abstract, paragraphs 11-13 and 52 and 60-61 and Figs. 5-8 .)
Ranganathan does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the applicator and the wiping section is adjustable.
Vits is directed to the coating of a continuous substrate.
Vits teaches an apparatus with an applicator (7-8) and a wiping section (9-15) , the applicator section including two successive wiping devices (9-15) that can be operated independently. (See Vits, Abstract, Fig. 1, and last paragraph of Specification) (Examiner is considering this independent operation of the successive wiping devices to be equivalent to the distance between the applicator and the wiping section is adjustable. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an apparatus wherein the distance between the applicator and the wiping section is adjustable, as an art recognized form of an apparatus for coating a continuous substrate. (See Vits, Abstract, Fig. 1, and last paragraph of Specification.)
Regarding claim 11, installation for coating multiple, plane parallel wires (512) with resin comprising the apparatus of claim 1. (See Ranganathan, Abstract, paragraphs 11-13 and 52 and 60-61 and Figs. 5-8 .)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,545,323 to Steven F. Keys (hereinafter Keys).
Regarding claim 2, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot and an exit slot for guiding the one or more wires through, said container having a permeable bottom and a permeable cover, said bottom for holding a bottom felt,said cover for holding a top felt, said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure against one another.
Keys is directed to the coating of wire with a felt applicator.
Keys teaches the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot (70) and an exit slot for guiding the one or more wires through, said container (52) having a permeable bottom (bottom of 52) and a permeable cover (top of 52), said bottom for holding a bottom felt (67) , said cover for holding a top felt (68), said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure against one another. (See Keys, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and col. 3,lines 40-67, col. 5, lines 32-62.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot and an exit slot for guiding the one or more wires through, said container having a permeable bottom and a permeable cover, said bottom for holding a bottom felt , said cover for holding a top felt, said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure against one another, because Keys teaches this would enable a more uniform coating to be applied to the exterior surface of the moving wire. (See Keys, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and col. 1, lines 46-59; col. 3, lines 40-67; and col. 5, lines 32-62.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,545,323 to Steven F. Keys (hereinafter Keys).
Regarding claim 3, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt and bottom felt with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system.
Keys is directed to the coating of wire with a felt applicator.
Keys teaches resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt and bottom felt with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system. (See Keys, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and col. 3,lines 40-67, col. 5, lines 32-62.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt and bottom felt with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system, because Keys teaches this would enable a more uniform coating to be applied to the exterior surface of the moving wire. (See Keys, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, and col. 1, lines 46-59; col. 3, lines 40-67; and col. 5, lines 32-62.)
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,013,312 to Cornell et al (hereinafter Cornell).
Regarding claim 2, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot and an exit slot for guiding the one or more wires through, said container having a permeable bottom and a permeable cover, said bottom for holding a bottom felt , said cover for holding a top felt, said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure against one another.
Cornell is directed to the coating of wire with a felt applicator.
Cornell teaches the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot (left side of 36) and an exit slot (right side of 36) for guiding the one or more wires (12) through, said container (18) having a permeable bottom (36 on bottom) and a permeable cover (36 on top), said bottom for holding a bottom felt (36) , said cover for holding a top felt (36), said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure (42) against one another. (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , line 31- col. 6, line 41 and col. 10, lines 30-64.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator comprises a container with an entrance slot and an exit slot for guiding the one or more wires through, said container having a permeable bottom and a permeable cover, said bottom for holding a bottom felt , said cover for holding a top felt, said cover pressing said bottom felt and top felt with a controlled pressure against one another, because Cornell teaches this would enable all parts of the exterior surface of a cross-section of the elongated material to be coated. (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , line 31- col. 6, line 41 and col. 10, lines 30-64.)
Regarding claim 3, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt and bottom felt with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system.
Cornell teaches resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt (36) and bottom felt (36) with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system (38) . (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , line 31- col. 6, line 41 and col. 10, lines 30-64.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include resin solution piping for feeding and soaking said top felt and bottom felt with resin solution through said permeable cover towards said permeable bottom and wherein the resin solution is held at fixed level above the top felt by means of an overflow system, Cornell teaches this would enable all parts of the exterior surface of a cross-section of the elongated material to be coated. (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , line 31- col. 6, line 41 and col. 10, lines 30-64.)
Regarding claim 4, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach wherein said wiping section comprises one or more wiping zones, each wiping zone having a bottom and top wiper felt.
Cornell teaches a plurality of longitudinally spaced locations can be used to apply coating to strips in recesses of applicator housing. (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , lines 1-9, and 40-47.)
Cornell teaches wherein said wiping section comprises one or more wiping zones, each wiping zone having a bottom (36) and top wiper felt (36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said wiping section comprises one or more wiping zones, each wiping zone having a bottom and top wiper felt, Cornell teaches this would enable all parts of the exterior surface of a cross-section of the elongated material to be coated. (See Cornell, Abstract, Figs. 1-7, and col. 5 , lines 1-9, and 40-47.)
Regarding claim 5, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach the length of said wiping section can be adjusted.
Vits teaches the length of said wiping section can be adjusted (height adjusted). (See Vits, Abstract, Fig. 1, and last paragraph of Specification.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the length of said wiping section can be adjusted, Vits teaches this would enable position of the wipers to be adjusted. (See Vits, Abstract, Fig. 1, and last paragraph of Specification.)
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180073580 A1 to Bracamonte et al (hereinafter Bracamonte).
Regarding claim 6, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach said applicator and wiping section are within an encasement, said encasement for containing solvent fumes emanating from said resin solution, wherein said encasement is provided with an active fume exhaust
Bracamonte is directed to the coating with a die.
Bracamonte teaches said applicator and wiping section are within an encasement (102, evacuated chamber), said encasement for containing solvent fumes emanating from said resin solution, wherein said encasement is provided with an active fume exhaust (116, 210). (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, and 58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said applicator and wiping section are within an encasement, said encasement for containing solvent fumes emanating from said resin solution, wherein said encasement is provided with an active fume exhaust, because Bracamonte teaches this would enable gases which would cause defects to the final layer to be removed. (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, and 58.)
Regarding claim 7, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach said encasement can be filled with a controlled atmosphere on demand.
Bracamonte teaches said encasement can be filled with a controlled atmosphere on demand i.e. purging, back-filled with inert gas . (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, 87, 108, 111-112, and 116.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said encasement can be filled with a controlled atmosphere on demand, because Bracamonte teaches this would enable gases which would allow defects to the final layer to be removed and replaced with inert gases. (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, 87, 108, 111-112, and 116.)
Regarding claim 9, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach the active fume exhaust extracts the fumes from the bottom side of the encasement.
Bracamonte teaches said encasement can be filled with a controlled atmosphere on demand i.e. purging, back-filled with inert gas . (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, 87, 108, 111-112, and 116.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the active fume exhaust extracts the fumes from the bottom side of the encasement, because Bracamonte teaches this would enable gases which would allow defects to the final layer to be removed and replaced with inert gases. (See Bracamonte, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 52-54, 87, 108, 111-112, and 116.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180073580 A1 to Bracamonte et al (hereinafter Bracamonte) as applied to claim 8 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110305824 A1 to Chesterfield et al (hereinafter Chesterfield).
Regarding claim 8, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach said encasement further contains a condenser for condensing solvent fumes.
Chesterfield teaches forming a film and removing a solvent.
Chesterfield teaches said encasement further contains a condenser for condensing solvent fumes. (See Chesterfield, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 13, 46-48, 57, 59, 73, and 110.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said encasement further contains a condenser for condensing solvent fumes, because Chesterfield teaches this is an art recognized equivalent means for removing a solvent. (See Chesterfield, Abstract, Figs. 1, paragraphs 13, 46-48, 57, 59, 73, and 110.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180118952 A1 to Ranganathan et al (hereinafter Ranganathan) and DE 36 33 833 C1 to Vits (hereinafter Vits) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,545,323 to Steven F. Keys (hereinafter Keys) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150179483 A1 to Tseng et al (hereinafter Tseng) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200081423 A1 to Clark et al (hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 11, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach a buffer tank, a solvent tank with solvent valve and resin tank with resin valve, a level meter and a density meter and a controller, said controller for controlling the solvent valve and/or the resin valve based on the input of the density meter and the level meter.
Key teaches resin tank with resin valve, a level meter (26). (See Keys, Abstract, col. 3, lines 22-39.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include resin tank with resin valve, a level meter , because Keys teaches this would enable a coating level on the wire which is optimal. (See Keys, Abstract, col. 3, lines 22-39.)
Regarding claim 11, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach a buffer tank, a solvent tank with solvent valve and resin tank with resin valve, a level meter and a density meter and a controller, said controller for controlling the solvent valve and/or the resin valve based on the input of the density meter and the level meter.
Key teaches resin tank with resin valve, a level meter (26). (See Keys, Abstract, col. 3, lines 22-39.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include resin tank with resin valve, a level meter , because Keys teaches this would enable a coating level on the wire which is optimal. (See Keys, Abstract, col. 3, lines 22-39.)
Regarding claim 11, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach a buffer tank.
Tseng teaches a buffer tank as part of a resin dispensing apparatus (See Tseng, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 12-26, and 51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a buffer tank, because Tseng teaches this would enable a coating to be dispensed. (See Tseng, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 12-26, and 51.)
Regarding claim 11, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach a solvent tank with solvent valve a level meter and a density meter and a controller, said controller for controlling the solvent valve and/or the resin valve based on the input of the density meter and the level meter.
All of the elements listed above in the claim are well known in the art and are being used in a conventional manner.
Further, Clark teaches self-optimization of industrial coating processes based on controller having input from meters of inputs to various processes. (See Clark, Abstract, Figs. 1-22, and paragraphs 14, 296, 328, 345, 363, and 413.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a solvent tank with solvent valve a level meter and a density meter and a controller, said controller for controlling the solvent valve and/or the resin valve based on the input of the density meter and the level meter, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper amount of solvent and/or resin based on the input of the density and level meter, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal yield and reduced defects. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Clark, Abstract, Figs. 1-22, and paragraphs 14, 296, 328, 345, 363, and 413.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717