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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25th 2025 and October 16th 2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims status:
Claims 8-11, 14 and 23-37, of which Claims 8 and 34 are independent claims.
Claims 1-7, 12-13 and 15-22 are cancelled.
Claims 34-37 are newly added.
Claims 8-9, 14, 23-24, 26-30 and 32-33 are amended.
Claims 8-11, 14 and 23-37 are examined as follow:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11, 14 and 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, the limitation “…exposing a portion of the outer coating to a laser to remove the portion of the outer coating from the coated non-metallic composite part without damaging the coated non-metallic composite part…” is indefinite, because “the coated non-metallic composite part” is already damaged when “the outer coating” is removed or partially removed, since the outer coating is part of the coated non-metallic composite part too. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, it is assumed that such limitation is likely to be “the non-metallic composite part”. It is suggested that to make correction accordingly, if such assumption is incorrect, please further amend and clarify the limitation.
In claim 24, the limitation “…exposing a portion of the outer coating to a laser to remove the portion of the outer coating from the coated non-metallic composite part without damaging the coated non-metallic composite part…” is indefinite, because “the coated non-metallic composite part” is already damaged when “the outer coating” is removed, since the outer coating is part of the coated non-metallic composite part too. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, it is assumed that such limitation is likely to be “the non-metallic composite part”. It is suggested that to make correction accordingly, if such assumption is incorrect, please further amend and clarify the limitation.
In claim 34, the limitation “…exposing a portion of the outer coating to a laser to remove the portion of the outer coating from the coated non-metallic composite part without damaging the coated non-metallic composite part…” is indefinite, because “the coated non-metallic composite part” is already damaged when “the outer coating” is removed, since the outer coating is part of the coated non-metallic composite part too. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, it is assumed that such limitation is likely to be “the non-metallic composite part”. It is suggested that to make correction accordingly, if such assumption is incorrect, please further amend and clarify the limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 24, the limitation “…wherein exposing the portion of the outer coating to the laser to remove the portion of the outer coating from the coated non-metallic composite part without damaging the coated non- metallic composite part comprises removing the portion of the outer coating using the laser…” does not further limit the subject matter of claim 8 upon which it depends.
In claim 31, the limitation “…co-curing the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part…” is already recited in claim 8 which claim 31 dependent on.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 8-11, 14, 24-26 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable TRACEY et al (US2018/0104726A1 previously cited) herein set forth as TRACEY, in view of Drexler et al (US2016/0089851A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Drexler.
Regarding claim 8, TRACEY discloses a method (method #100, fig.2A) of removing an outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A) from a coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), the method (method #100, fig.2A) comprising:
Applying (Referring Step#112 in fig.2A) a protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) to a non-metallic composite part (base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), comprising co-curing (referring to method #100 Step #112 in fig.2A and Paragraph 0037 cited: “…processing tool 200 may be a mold used to form the composite part during its curing in an oven …”, therefore, the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part both cured together in the oven) both the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) and the non-metallic composite part (base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) and forming the coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”),
applying (Referring Step#112 in fig.2A) the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) to the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) comprising forming the outer coating, and
exposing a portion of the outer coating (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) to a laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A) to remove (referring fig. 6A-C) the portion of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) from the coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) without damaging the coated non-metallic composite part (refer to 112b assumption above; base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), wherein the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) comprises a laser-sensitive material that selected from a reflective layer, an optical sensor layer or a layer having both reflective and optical sensor properties (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited: “…Protective optical layer 220 is operable to block a laser beam from reaching base portion 210 when processing tool 200 is being cleaned using laser ablation. This blocking function may be achieved by reflecting the laser beam. In this example, protective optical layer 220 may perform in accordance with one or more of the following options. First, the protective optical layer may be reflective to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise a reflective material, such as metal flakes or ceramic flakes (e.g., mica). More specifically, the reflective material may be selected from the group consisting of alumina flakes, stainless flakes, nickel flakes, and the like. Second, the protective optical layer may be absorptive to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise oxirane or, more specifically, oxirane, [[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]methyl]- (available as CLEARWELD from J-B Weld Company in Sulphur Springs, Tex.). Third, the protective optical layer may diffract the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise titania (titanium oxide)…” and Paragraph 0031 cited: “…In some embodiments, protective optical layer 220 is operable as an optical sensor. Specifically, protective optical layer 220 may be removed during cleaning. The light emitted by processing tool 200 or, more specifically, the light emitted by a portion of processing tool that is being ablating, may change when protective optical layer 220 is removed from this portion. The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220…”), wherein the non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) is on an aircraft (refer to fig.9) and the outer coating (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) comprise the outer surface of the aircraft frame (#1118, fig.9).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
773
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
542
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
424
769
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tracey does not explicitly discloses wherein the protective coating layer comprises: a multilayer having at least a co-cured layer applied to the surface of the non-metallic composite part and at least a laser-sensitive layer applied to a surface of the co-cured layer; the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft.
In the similar field of protective layer for structure, Drexler discloses the protective coating layer (#10, fig.4A and B) comprises:
a multilayer (refer to fig 4A for multilayer) having at least a co-cured layer (#78, #64 and #63 in fig.4A and B) applied to the surface (#62, fig.4A and B) of the composite part (#28, fig.4A and B) and at least a laser-sensitive layer (#84, fig.4A and B) applied to a surface (#80b, fig.4A) of the co-cured layer (#78, #64 and #63 in fig.4A and B),
wherein the new outer coating comprises a livery for an aircraft (refer to paragraph 0034 cited: “…such as in the form of aircraft 12a, comprises one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, as disclosed herein. The one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, are preferably interior aircraft structural components that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, for example, interior ceiling and sidewall decorative panels, cabin interior sidewall and ceiling panels, floor panels, stowage bins, lavatory and galley panels and structures, bulkhead partitions, cargo bin liners, window shades, insulation barriers, moisture barriers, composite noise panels, and other suitable aircraft structural components 28a…”).
PNG
media_image6.png
652
461
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRACEY’s method with wherein the protective coating layer comprises: a multilayer having at least a co-cured layer applied to the surface of the non-metallic composite part and at least a laser-sensitive layer applied to a surface of the co-cured layer; the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft, as taught by Drexler, in order to provide other combination of layers for the non-metallic composite part, such that would increase desired performance and capability of the product.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of TRACEY and Drexier discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, the modification of TRACEY and Drexier already discloses in claim 8 rejection above, applying the laser to a portion of the outer coating to remove the portion.
TRACEY further discloses subsequently applying the laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A) to an additional portion (refer to Paragraph 0031 below especially “a new portion”) of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) to remove the additional portion (refer to Paragraph 0031 cited: “…The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220 …”) without damaging the non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses wherein upon exposure to the laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A), the laser-sensitive layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) undergoes one or more of changes in color, changes in fluorescence, and reflection of light (refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…This removal may alter the light emitted by the tool during laser ablation, which in turn may be detected by a sensor…”).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, TRACEY further discloses monitoring one or more of the changes in color, changes in fluorescence, and reflection of light within a feedback loop that indicates removal of the outer coating (refer to Paragraph 0031 cited: “…The light emitted by processing tool 200 or, more specifically, the light emitted by a portion of processing tool that is being ablating, may change when protective optical layer 220 is removed from this portion. The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220 …”).
Regarding claim 24, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses wherein exposing the portion of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A and 6B) to the laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A) to remove the portion of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) from the coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) without damaging the coated non- metallic composite part (refer to 112b assumption above; base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) comprises removing the portion (refer to Paragraph 0031 below especially “a new portion”) of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.1A) (refer to Paragraph 0031 cited: “…The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220 …”).
Regarding claim 25, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses wherein the non-metallic composite part comprises carbon-reinforced polymers, glass fiber-reinforced polymers, or mixtures thereof (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…The base portion of the processing tool may be fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). More specifically, the base portion may be selected from the group consisting of bismaleimide carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), epoxy CFRP, benzoxazine FRP, and the like …”); and the co-cured layer comprises polyurea, fluorourethane, polyester, acrylic, polycarbonate, polysilazane, sol-gel coating, or epoxy (refer to Paragraph 0006 cited: “…The release layer may comprise a material selected from the group consisting of silicone (e.g., polysiloxanes) release agents, fluoropolymer resin, and polysilazane resin.…”).
Regarding claim 26, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY does not explicitly discloses prior to applying the protective coating layer, applying a surfacing film to the non-metallic composite part.
In the similar field of protective layer for structure, Drexler discloses prior to applying the protective coating layer (protective layer #84, fig.4A and B), applying a surfacing film (#63, fig.4A and B) to the non-metallic composite part (#28, fig.4A and B).
Regarding claim 27, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 24, TRACEY further discloses applying a new outer coating (new release layer #230”, fig.6D) after removing the portion (refer to fig.6a and 6B) of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B).
Regarding claim 28, TRACEY discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY does not explicitly discloses wherein the new outer coating comprises a decorative outer livery for an aircraft.
In the similar field of protective layer for structure, Drexler discloses wherein the new outer coating comprises a livery for an aircraft (refer to paragraph 0034 cited: “…such as in the form of aircraft 12a, comprises one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, as disclosed herein. The one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, are preferably interior aircraft structural components that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, for example, interior ceiling and sidewall decorative panels, cabin interior sidewall and ceiling panels, floor panels, stowage bins, lavatory and galley panels and structures, bulkhead partitions, cargo bin liners, window shades, insulation barriers, moisture barriers, composite noise panels, and other suitable aircraft structural components 28a…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tracey’s method with wherein the new outer coating comprises a decorative outer livery for an aircraft, as taught by Drexler, in order to increase the utility and marketability of the method, and taking advantage of the removal paint and repainting need of the aircraft industry.
Regarding claim 29, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses monitoring a wavelength of emitted light (refer to the “alter the light” in the citation below) while exposing the portion (refer to fig. 6A and 6B) of the outer coating to the laser (Refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…the protective optical layer may be removed during laser ablation. This removal may alter the light emitted by the tool during laser ablation, which in turn may be detected by a sensor …”)
PNG
media_image6.png
652
461
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tracey’s method with prior to applying the protective coating layer, applying a surfacing film to the non-metallic composite part, as taught by Drexler, in order to provide other combination of layers for the non-metallic composite part, such that would increase desired performance and capability of the product.
Regarding claim 30, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 29, TRACEY further discloses determining whether the portion of outer coating has been removed based on the wavelength of the emitted light (Refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…the protective optical layer may be removed during laser ablation. This removal may alter the light emitted by the tool during laser ablation, which in turn may be detected by a sensor …”, and fig.6A-D ).
Regarding claim 31, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses co-curing the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part (referring to method #100 Step #112 in fig.2A and Paragraph 0037 cited: “…processing tool 200 may be a mold used to form the composite part during its curing in an oven …”, therefore, the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part both cured together in the oven).
Regarding claim 34, TRACEY discloses a method (method #100, fig.2A) of removing an outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A) from a coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), the method (method #100, fig.2A) comprising:
Applying (Referring Step#112 in fig.2A) a protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) to a non-metallic composite part (base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), comprising co-curing (referring to method #100 Step #112 in fig.2A and Paragraph 0037 cited: “…processing tool 200 may be a mold used to form the composite part during its curing in an oven …”, therefore, the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part both cured together in the oven) both the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) and the non-metallic composite part (base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) and forming the coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”),
applying (Referring Step#112 in fig.2A) the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) to the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) comprising forming the outer coating, and
exposing a portion of the outer coating (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) to a laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A) to remove (referring fig. 6A-C) the portion of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) from the coated non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”) without damaging the coated non-metallic composite part (refer to 112b assumption above; base portion #210, fig.6A-D Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), wherein the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) comprises a laser-sensitive material that selected from a reflective layer, an optical sensor layer or a layer having both reflective and optical sensor properties (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited: “…Protective optical layer 220 is operable to block a laser beam from reaching base portion 210 when processing tool 200 is being cleaned using laser ablation. This blocking function may be achieved by reflecting the laser beam. In this example, protective optical layer 220 may perform in accordance with one or more of the following options. First, the protective optical layer may be reflective to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise a reflective material, such as metal flakes or ceramic flakes (e.g., mica). More specifically, the reflective material may be selected from the group consisting of alumina flakes, stainless flakes, nickel flakes, and the like. Second, the protective optical layer may be absorptive to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise oxirane or, more specifically, oxirane, [[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]methyl]- (available as CLEARWELD from J-B Weld Company in Sulphur Springs, Tex.). Third, the protective optical layer may diffract the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise titania (titanium oxide)…” and Paragraph 0031 cited: “…In some embodiments, protective optical layer 220 is operable as an optical sensor. Specifically, protective optical layer 220 may be removed during cleaning. The light emitted by processing tool 200 or, more specifically, the light emitted by a portion of processing tool that is being ablating, may change when protective optical layer 220 is removed from this portion. The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220…”), wherein the protective coating layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) comprises:
a co-curable coating (refer to method #100, Step #112 “form composite structure using tool” and Paragraph 0037 cited: “…processing tool 200 may be a mold used to form the composite part during its curing in an oven …”, therefore, the protective coating layer and the non-metallic composite part both cured together in the oven, therefore read on “co-cured”) which comprises a laser-sensitive material (protective layer #220, fig.1A and B) incorporated (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited below specially on “…such as metal flakes or ceramic flakes …”) therein to form a laser-sensitive co-cured layer (protective layer #220, fig.1A and B) applied to a surface of the non-metallic composite part (base portion #210, fig.1A and B and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”), wherein the laser-sensitive material (protective layer #220, fig.1A and B) is selected from a reflective material, an optical sensor material or a combination thereof (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited: “…Protective optical layer 220 is operable to block a laser beam from reaching base portion 210 when processing tool 200 is being cleaned using laser ablation. This blocking function may be achieved by reflecting the laser beam. In this example, protective optical layer 220 may perform in accordance with one or more of the following options. First, the protective optical layer may be reflective to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise a reflective material, such as metal flakes or ceramic flakes (e.g., mica). More specifically, the reflective material may be selected from the group consisting of alumina flakes, stainless flakes, nickel flakes, and the like. Second, the protective optical layer may be absorptive to the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise oxirane or, more specifically, oxirane, [[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]methyl]- (available as CLEARWELD from J-B Weld Company in Sulphur Springs, Tex.). Third, the protective optical layer may diffract the laser beam. For example, the protective optical layer may comprise titania (titanium oxide)…” and Paragraph 0031 cited: “…In some embodiments, protective optical layer 220 is operable as an optical sensor. Specifically, protective optical layer 220 may be removed during cleaning. The light emitted by processing tool 200 or, more specifically, the light emitted by a portion of processing tool that is being ablating, may change when protective optical layer 220 is removed from this portion. The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220…”)),
wherein the new outer coating comprises a livery for an aircraft (refer to paragraph 0034 cited: “…such as in the form of aircraft 12a, comprises one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, as disclosed herein. The one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, are preferably interior aircraft structural components that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, for example, interior ceiling and sidewall decorative panels, cabin interior sidewall and ceiling panels, floor panels, stowage bins, lavatory and galley panels and structures, bulkhead partitions, cargo bin liners, window shades, insulation barriers, moisture barriers, composite noise panels, and other suitable aircraft structural components 28a…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
773
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
542
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
424
769
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tracey does not explicitly discloses the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft.
In the similar field of protective layer for structure, Drexler discloses wherein the new outer coating comprises a livery for an aircraft (refer to paragraph 0034 cited: “…such as in the form of aircraft 12a, comprises one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, as disclosed herein. The one or more structural components 28, such as in the form of aircraft structural components 28a, are preferably interior aircraft structural components that may be covered with one or more decorative laminates 10, for example, interior ceiling and sidewall decorative panels, cabin interior sidewall and ceiling panels, floor panels, stowage bins, lavatory and galley panels and structures, bulkhead partitions, cargo bin liners, window shades, insulation barriers, moisture barriers, composite noise panels, and other suitable aircraft structural components 28a…”).
PNG
media_image6.png
652
461
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRACEY’s method with the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft, as taught by Drexler, in order to provide other combination of layers for the non-metallic composite part, such that would increase desired performance and capability of the product.
Regarding claim 14, TRACEY discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 34, TRACEY does not specifically disclose wherein the laser-sensitive co-cured layer has surfaces adjacent to the non-metallic composite part and opposite to the non-metallic composite part, and wherein the laser-sensitive material is concentrated near the surface opposite to the non-metallic composite part.
In the similar field of protective layer for structure, Drexler discloses wherein the laser-sensitive co-cured layer (#84, #78, #64 and #63, fig.4A) has surfaces (#86b, fig.4A) adjacent to the non-metallic composite part (#28, fig.4A) and opposite to the non-metallic composite part (#28, fig.4A), and wherein the laser-sensitive material (#88, fig.4A) is concentrated near the surface (#86b, fig.4A) opposite to the non-metallic composite part (#28, fig.4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRACEY’s method with wherein the laser-sensitive co-cured layer has surfaces adjacent to the non-metallic composite part and opposite to the non-metallic composite part, and wherein the laser-sensitive material is concentrated near the surface opposite to the non-metallic composite part, as taught by Drexler, in order to provide other combination of layers for the non-metallic composite part, such that would increase desired performance and capability of the product.
Regarding claim 35, the modification of TRACEY and Drexier discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 34, the modification of TRACEY and Drexier already discloses in claim 34 rejection above, applying the laser to a portion of the outer coating to remove the portion.
TRACEY further discloses subsequently applying the laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A) to an additional portion (refer to Paragraph 0031 below especially “a new portion”) of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) to remove the additional portion (refer to Paragraph 0031 cited: “…The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220 …”) without damaging the non-metallic composite part (processing tools #200, fig.6A-D and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Base portion 210 may be non-metal or, more specific, composite or 3D printed plastic…”).
Regarding claim 36, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 34, TRACEY further discloses wherein upon exposure to the laser (refer to method #100, step #120 “expose surface of tool to laser beam” and Step #122 “emit light” in fig.2A), the laser-sensitive layer (protective layer #220, fig.6A-D) undergoes one or more of changes in color, changes in fluorescence, and reflection of light (refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…This removal may alter the light emitted by the tool during laser ablation, which in turn may be detected by a sensor…”).
Regarding claim 37, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 36, TRACEY further discloses monitoring one or more of the changes in color, changes in fluorescence, and reflection of light within a feedback loop that indicates removal of the outer coating (refer to Paragraph 0031 cited: “…The light emitted by processing tool 200 or, more specifically, the light emitted by a portion of processing tool that is being ablating, may change when protective optical layer 220 is removed from this portion. The emitted light is captured by a sensor that directs the laser beam of the laser ablation system to a new portion of processing tool that still has protective optical layer 220 …”).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRACEY et al (US2018/0104726A1 previously cited) herein set forth as TRACEY, in view of Drexler et al (US2016/0089851A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Drexler, further in view of Conneely et al (US2010/0301013A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Conneely.
Regarding claim 32, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 24, TRACEY further discloses monitoring removal of the portion of the outer coating (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) using a sensor (sensor #272, fig. 6A-B).
However, TRACEY and Drexler does not specifically disclose that the sensor can be a camera.
In the similar field of laser ablation, Conneely teaches the use of camera for monitoring laser ablation (refer to Paragraph 0038 cited: “…The step of monitoring may comprise providing an image of the laser material interaction zone to determine when sufficient liquid has been generated. The step of providing an image may be achieved using a microscope, spectrometer and/or a camera…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRACEY’s sensor with the use of a camera, as taught by Conneely, in order to provide an image of the laser process, such that would have a more accurate monitoring, better observation history and records to further study possible issues later or happened.
Regarding claim 33, the modification of TRACEY, Drexler and Conneely discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, TRACEY further discloses measuring the protective coating layer (release layer #230, fig.6A-B) using a sensor (sensor #272, fig. 6A-B) during exposure of the portion of the outer coating to the laser (refer to fig. 6A and 6B).
TRACEY and Drexler does not explicitly disclose measuring in in-situ and the use of camera.
In the similar field of laser ablation, Conneely discloses measuring the protective coating layer in-situ (refer to fig.8 show that the workpiece is in-situ); the use of camera for monitoring laser ablation (refer to Paragraph 0038 cited: “…The step of monitoring may comprise providing an image of the laser material interaction zone to determine when sufficient liquid has been generated. The step of providing an image may be achieved using a microscope, spectrometer and/or a camera…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRACEY’s method with measuring in in-situ and the use of camera, as taught by Conneely, in order to provide a stable and better image of the process, such that would have a more accurate monitoring, better observation history and records to further study possible issues later or happened.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRACEY et al (US2018/0104726A1 previously cited) herein set forth as TRACEY, in view of Drexler et al (US2016/0089851A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Drexler, further in view of NPL How are mirrors made by Ezmeralda Lee at https://homesteady.com/13413746/how-are-mirrors-made, herein set forth as NPL-Ezmeralda.
Regarding claim 23, the modification of TRACEY and Drexler discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 34, TRACEY further discloses wherein the laser-sensitive co-cured layer has surfaces adjacent to the non-metallic composite part and opposite to the non-metallic composite part.
TRACEY and Drexler does not discloses wherein the laser-sensitive material is concentrated deeper into the laser-sensitive co-cured layer.
In the field of reflective mirror, NPL-Ezmeralda discloses wherein the laser-sensitive material is concentrated deeper into the laser-sensitive co-cured layer (refer to the attached NPL Page 2 under “The Silvering Process” cited: “…This is the result of chemical reactions between these solutions that isolate the silver while maintaining it in liquid form long enough to be spread on the sheet of glass. This mixture has to be poured over the highly polished glass, during which time it cools down a little and clings on to the surface evenly. …”, Examiner note: while NPL Ezmeralda is coating one side of the glass, when in combination of TRACEY such reflective material would be at deepest into the laser-sensitive co-cured layer relative toward the non-metallic composite part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the TRACEY’s laser-sensitive co-cured layer with NPL-Ezmeralda’s mirror, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of reflective laser-sensitive , in order to provide protection to the reflective material, such that the reflective material would not get scratch or fall off easily.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on December 3rd 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112b Rejection.
With respect to the Rejection 112d: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on December 3rd 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112d in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112d Rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed December 3rd 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…The Tracey reference does not disclose or suggest that a non-metallic composite part is on an aircraft or that the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft. Instead, the Tracey reference teaches removal of a release layer from a tool. The Drexler reference does not disclose or suggest that a non-metallic composite part is on an aircraft or that the outer coating comprises outer livery on the aircraft. Instead, the Drexler reference teaches applying decorative laminates to interior features of an airplane with no teaching or mention of laser removal of them. Drexler is silent regarding removal of such interior decorative lamination. Moreover, an interior decorative laminate is not outer livery…”, Remark Page 6 last paragraph – 7 first paragraph.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
Regarding to “non-metallic composite part”, it is noted that TRACEY is clearly disclosed the limitation “non-metallic composite part” refer to Paragraph 0004 cited: “…The base portion may comprise a non-metal material, such as a composite material…” and Paragraph 0011 cited: “…The composite part may be fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). More specifically, the composite part may be selected from the group consisting of bismaleimide carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP), epoxy CFRP, benzoxazine FRP, and the like…”
Regarding to “processing tool”, it is noted TRACEY clearly disclosed the limitation “processing tool” can be the aircraft’s frame #1118 in fig.9, which fig.9 clearly referring to the outer surface of the aircraft.
Regarding to “the outer livery”, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Drexler reference is only used to disclose the outer coating is a livery, all the other limitations already disclosed by TRACEY. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field of aircraft coating as mentioned above, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them.
The rest of the arguments in the remark are based on or related to the arguments listed above or combination of them, therefore they are all addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simko (US10086597 newly cited) discloses a method of removing coating that read on some of the limitation cited in the independent claim and dependent claims.
Hamm et al (US5281798 newly cited) discloses a method of removing coating that read on some of the limitation cited in the independent claim and dependent claims.
Vega et al (US4900891 newly cited) discloses a method of removing coating that read on some of the limitation cited in the independent claim and dependent claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 February 6th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights