Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/935,097

MASKLESS TOUCH UP TOOL FOR SURFACE COATINGS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Examiner
VETERE, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BLUE ORIGIN, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 872 resolved
-4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
60.7%
+20.7% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 872 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pannier (US 1,401,436). Claim 1: Pannier teaches a hand stamp for marking a surface (i.e. capable of touching up a coating on a surface) (Abst.), the stamp comprising: a faceplate (30) having a distal opening (32) which surrounds the target region on the substrate such that the stamp is applied through the opening (3:70-92) and the faceplate is removably attached to the distal end of the tool (3:1-11; Fig. 1); a handle (2) at a proximal end of the tool comprising a plurality of linear bars (each of the ribs on 2 in Fig. 1); and a plurality of supports (1) configured to connect the proximal and distal ends (Fig. 1; see, also, 2:43-48 which refers to “each side member of the frame 1” indicating that at least 2 are present). Claim 3: Pannier teaches a flat shape that matches the surface to be stamped (Fig. 1, e.g.). Claim 5: Pannier teaches that the faceplate is a plurality of linear segments (Fig. 7, e.g.). Claim 6: Pannier teaches that the handle is connected to an applicator (23a) which applies the coating through the opening (Fig. 6). Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daly et al. (US 2018/0369860). Claims 1 and 16: Daly teaches a tool for touching up a coating on a surface (Abst.), the tool comprising: a faceplate (12) having a distal opening which surrounds the area to be coated (Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0042-0043, 0047), the faceplate configured to be removably attached to the distal end of the tool (¶ 0040); a handle (14) which comprises a plurality of linear bars (see ¶ 0036 which explains that the handle is provided with multiple bars to extend its reach); and a plurality of supports (13) which connect the handle and the faceplate (Fig. 1). Claim 2: Daly teaches that the faceplate forms a sealing interface with the substrate (¶ 0047). Claim 3: Daly teaches that the faceplate is flat to match the flat surface (Fig. 1). Claim 5: Daly teaches that the faceplate comprises a plurality of linear segments (Fig. 4, e.g.). Claim 6: Daly teaches that the faceplate receives an applicator (11) for applying coating (Fig. 3). Claim 9: Daly teaches a tool for touching up a coating on a surface (Abst.), the tool comprising: a proximal end having a handle (14) which comprises a plurality of linear bars (see ¶ 0036 which explains that the handle is provided with multiple bars to extend its reach); a faceplate (12) which forms a sealing interface against a substrate and mitigates migration of excess coating (¶ 0047); and one or more support members (13) which connect the faceplate and the handle. Claims 12-14 and 17: Daly teaches that the faceplate is removably coupled (¶ 0040) via two curved supports (13). Claim 15: Daly teaches that the handle is one linear bar (Fig. 1). Claim 20: Daly teaches that the faceplate is polygonal (Fig. 2, e.g.). 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. 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in light of in light of Chase et al. (US 2017/0136491). Claim 4: Daly fails to teach how the faceplate is formed. Chase teaches a paint applicator tool (Abst.) and explains that the tool can be formed using injection molding or three dimensional printing (i.e. additive manufacturing) (¶ 0030). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have formed the faceplate of Daly using additive manufacturing with the predictable expectation of success. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in light of Janssen (US 4,856,136). Claims 7 and 18: Daly fails to teach that the bars form a cross. Janssen teaches a paint applicator (Abst.) and explains that the shape of the handle can be varied in order to provide better strength and control (5:11-15). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a cross brace shape for the handle in order to have allowed for better control by using two hands on the crossed bars during application. Claims 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly. Claims 8, 10 and 11: Daly further teaches that the faceplate and applicator can be in any shape depending on the requirements of the user (¶ 0054). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a cubic shape for the applicator or a rounded or ring-shape for the faceplate with the predictable expectation of success depending on the requirements of the device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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. /ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600678
METHOD FOR CHARGING OPEN PORES IN CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE, AND CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604657
HIGH-THROUGHPUT EXPLORATION OF TRIPLE-CATION PEROVSKITES VIA TERNARY COMPOSITIONALLY-GRADED FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590181
HYDROPHOBICALLY-MODIFIED ASSOCIATIVE THICKENER POLYMERS PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590035
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN ABRADABLE LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583793
CERAMIC SLATE WITH COLORED JADE EFFECT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
61%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+13.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 872 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