DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/18/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 17-33 for further examination. Claims 34-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024, 05/08/2026 & 08/27/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dosing element” in claims 17-28; “contact pressure unit” in claims 17-18; “magnetic element” in claims 17, 20 & 22-27’ “device for profiling magnetic force” in claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections
6. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 17-19, 21-22 & 27-28 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmer (US 4,943,451 A) hereinafter Zimmer (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Zimmer are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 17, Zimmer discloses a device for dosing or levelling a liquid or pasty application medium onto a moving surface (abs; fig 1), comprising:
a dosing element (1) for contacting the application medium in a contact zone (see fig 1, area between 10a-10b), the dosing element (1) being formed wholly or partly of a magnetic or ferromagnetic material (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11);
a contact pressure unit (12) for pressing (see fig 1, arrow 5b) the dosing element (1) against the moving surface (14) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11); and
at least one magnetic element (13/46) having an attractive/repulsive effect (based on force exerted/not exerted by 13) on the dosing element (1), the at least one magnetic element (13/46) exerting a controllable magnetic force acting on the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11).
As regards to claim 18, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the magnetic force having the attractive/repulsive effect (based on force exerted/not exerted by 13) on the dosing element (1) wholly or partly assumes a function of the contact pressure unit (12) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11).
As regards to claim 19, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the dosing element (1) has a return device being a prestressed or bent elastically resilient blade or a prestressed elastic resilient mount of a doctor rod, counteracting the repulsive magnetic force (col 1, ln 47-col 2, ln 58; fig 1).
As regards to claim 21, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the dosing element (1) includes a dosing blade or a doctor rod (col 1, ln 47-col 2, ln 58; fig 1).
As regards to claim 22, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) is disposed at an adjustable distance (see fig 1, arrow) from the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11).
As regards to claim 27, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) extends over an entire length (see fig 1) of the dosing element (1) along a cross direction of the device (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11).
As regards to claim 28, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), which further comprises a device (43) for profiling magnetic force over a length of the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
11. Claims 20, 24-26 & 29-31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer as applied to claim 17 above.
As regards to claim 20, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) has the attractive/repulsive effect (based on force exerted/not exerted by 13) on the dosing element (1), and has an attractive/repulsive effect (based on force exerted/not exerted by 13) on the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose a plurality of magnetic elements.
Although the figures of Zimmer only depict a singular magnetic element, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zimmer to have additional magnetic elements as recited in the claim to accommodate additional substrates or as needed for an intended coating method and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated more than one magnetic element since It is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
As regards to claim 24, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) is disposed at a distance that can be measured in mm from the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose of less than 20 mm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed distance, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the distance recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the distance (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the distance the at least one magnetic element is disposed at.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 25, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) is disposed at a distance that can be measured in mm from the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose of less than 5 mm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed distance, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the distance recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the distance (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the distance the at least one magnetic element is disposed at.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regards to claim 26, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) is disposed at a distance that can be measured in mm from the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose of less than 1 mm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed distance, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the distance recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the distance (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the distance the at least one magnetic element is disposed at.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 29, the recitation “wherein said controllable magnetic force per cm is between 0.01 g/cm and 10 kg/cm”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Zimmer since Zimmer meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having said controllable magnetic force per cm be between 0.01 g/cm and 10 kg/cm, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 29, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the controllable magnetic force per cm can be measured in kg/cm (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose is between 0.01 g/cm and 10 kg/cm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed controllable magnetic force per cm, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the controllable magnetic force per cm recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the controllable magnetic force per cm (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the controllable magnetic force per cm.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 30, the recitation “wherein said controllable magnetic force per cm is between 0.05 g/cm and 5 kg/cm”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Zimmer since Zimmer meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having said controllable magnetic force per cm be between 0.01 g/cm and 10 kg/cm, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 30, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the controllable magnetic force per cm can be measured in kg/cm (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose is between 0.05 g/cm and 5 kg/cm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed controllable magnetic force per cm, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the controllable magnetic force per cm recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the controllable magnetic force per cm (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the controllable magnetic force per cm.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 31, the recitation “wherein said controllable magnetic force per cm is between 0.5 g/cm and 3 kg/cm”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Zimmer since Zimmer meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having said controllable magnetic force per cm be between 0.01 g/cm and 10 kg/cm, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 31, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the controllable magnetic force per cm can be measured in kg/cm (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose is between 0.5 g/cm and 3 kg/cm.
Although Zimmer does not explicitly disclose the claimed controllable magnetic force per cm, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Zimmer to have the controllable magnetic force per cm recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the controllable magnetic force per cm (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the controllable magnetic force per cm.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
12. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Madrzak et al. (US 5,893,951 A) hereinafter Madrzak (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Madrzak are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 23, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the at least one magnetic element (13/46) is disposed at an adjustable distance (see fig 1, arrow) from the dosing element (1) (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose at least one servo motor or linear servo motor for adjusting the adjustable distance.
Madrzak discloses a device for direct or indirect application of a liquid or pasty coating medium onto a traveling material web (abs; fig 1), comprising at least one drive system which powers the coating edge delimiting apparatus and/or moves it as needed for adjustment of the coating width, wherein the drive system is at least one manually or mechanically powered device, for example, at least one electronic, pneumatic, hydraulic, magnetic or electromagnetic actuator or a corresponding motor etc. or mixed forms thereof, wherein the drive system may feature, depending on its configuration, suitable drive means, transmitting elements, connecting elements and the like (col 3, ln 35-50). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one servo motor or linear servo motor for adjusting said adjustable distance of said at least one magnetic element from said dosing element in the apparatus of Zimmer, because Madrzak teaches the use of at least one drive system which powers the coating edge delimiting apparatus and/or moves it as needed for adjustment of the coating width, wherein the drive system is at least one manually or mechanically powered device, for example, at least one electronic, pneumatic, hydraulic, magnetic or electromagnetic actuator or a corresponding motor etc. or mixed forms thereof, wherein the drive system may feature, depending on its configuration, suitable drive means, transmitting elements, connecting elements and the like (col 3, ln 35-50).
13. Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sollinger (US 5,138,970 A) hereinafter Sollinger (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Sollinger are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 32, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material has a Curie temperature (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose of at least 80° C.
Sollinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1), wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material (magnets may also be solenoids consisting of a yoke plate 34, a sleeve 33 and a wire coil 28 that is contained in it and arranged around an iron core) has a Curie temperature of at least 80° C (iron (TC=759° C) (col 3, ln 50-col 4, ln 3; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein said wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material has a Curie temperature of at least 80° C in the apparatus of Zimmer, because Sollinger teaches the use of wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material (magnets may also be solenoids consisting of a yoke plate 34, a sleeve 33 and a wire coil 28 that is contained in it and arranged around an iron core) has a Curie temperature of at least 80° C (iron (TC=759° C) to be adjustable for controlling the field strength of the coils (col 3, ln 50-col 4, ln 3).
As regards to claim 33, Zimmer discloses a device (abs; fig 1), wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material has a Curie temperature (col 4, ln 17-22; col 5, ln 11-40; col 10, ln 3-col 12, ln 41; fig 1 & 11; clm 9-11), however Zimmer does not disclose of at least 100° C.
Sollinger discloses a coating device (abs; fig 1), wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material (magnets may also be solenoids consisting of a yoke plate 34, a sleeve 33 and a wire coil 28 that is contained in it and arranged around an iron core) has a Curie temperature of at least 100° C (iron (TC=759° C) (col 3, ln 50-col 4, ln 3; fig 1-4). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein said wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material has a Curie temperature of at least 100° C in the apparatus of Zimmer, because Sollinger teaches the use of wherein the wholly or partly magnetic or ferromagnetic material (magnets may also be solenoids consisting of a yoke plate 34, a sleeve 33 and a wire coil 28 that is contained in it and arranged around an iron core) has a Curie temperature of at least 100° C (iron (TC=759° C) to be adjustable for controlling the field strength of the coils (col 3, ln 50-col 4, ln 3).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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 D. Yuan can be reached on 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights