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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 19/073853 filed March 7, 2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 30, 2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 2018/0345560) in view of Moore et al. (US 2015/0147467).
Regarding claim 1: Funayama et al. discloses enameled copper wire manufacturing equipment (100) which includes a coating application unit (120) followed by a curing furnace (130) which is a baking section, the coating application unit (120) having a coating application mechanism with a coating tank and applicator roll, as well as a die with an alignment mechanism (200) downstream of the applicator roll, the die (200) allowing the coated wire (300) to pass therethrough having a shape which removes excess coating material, resulting in the desired thickness of the coating material on the wire (300) (pars. 5, 37, 44-49 and figures 1-3). Funayama et al. fails to explicitly state that the applicators apply paint, and rather simple refer to the material as an enamel coating material containing one of various resins (par. 39). However, the inclusion of the material used by the apparatus does not impart further patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115), and as such the coating application roll of Funayama et al. can be considered a paint applicator configured to apply a paint.
Funayama et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second paint applicator and die applying a second coating after the first.
However, Moore et al. discloses a similar wire coating apparatus in which a wire passes through a primary coater (3) having a die and a secondary coater (6) having a die, with no curing device in between to perform a wet-on-wet application process (pars. 44-45, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a secondary coating application unit downstream of the first like in the invention of Moore et al. because Moore et al. teaches that multi-layer coating applications are known and often preferred (par. 3), and using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2: Funayama et al. and Moore et al. disclose the above combination, and Funuyama et al. teaches that the shape of the die (200) can be adjusted specifically to scrape off a desired amount of coating (par. 49) but fails to explicitly disclose that a theoretical second die can have a gap larger than the that of the first die. However, Moore et al. also teaches that die sizes and diameters can be different for each subsequent die, specifically showing a situation in which an inner diameter of the second die (d2/d3) is smaller than that of the first die (pars. 89-101, figure 7B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a smaller die diameter for the first die than the second as shown by Moore et al. because Moore et al. teaches that these arrangements help ensure more uniform coatings (par. 100), because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04), and because trying from a finite number of solutions (same die size, first die smaller, first die larger) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 3: Funayama et al. discloses that the wire (300) travels repeatedly through the coating application unit (120) in a position next to the previous cycle such that there are a plurality of the die units (200) in the path of the wire (300), each one including the coating applicator and die (200) (par. 41, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4: Funayama et al. discloses that the die (200) is dividable into a number of pieces including a die (210), receiving member (220), bearing member (230), movable member (240) and guide member (250), all of which the wire (300) passes through and extend along an axial direction (pars. 47-48, figure 2).
Regarding claim 5: Funayama et al. discloses that the wire (300) travels repeatedly through the coating application unit (120) and curing furnace (130) in a position next to the previous cycle, and in the combination this would include both coating application units, where the wire (300) passes through a number of times depending on the desired total thickness (par. 41, figure 1B), the number of times being at least two or more, i.e. at least 12 as seen in figure 1B.
Regarding claim 6: Funayama et al. and Moore et al. teach that each of the two subsequent coating units (3, 6) have their own independent coating source (12, 14) separate from each other (Moore et al. figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
7/31/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights