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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on August 28, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 19 are amended; claims 6-9 and 11-17 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-5, 10, and 18-20 pending for examination.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2019/0202547, previously cited) in view of Satake et al. (US 2001/0036553, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 18, and 19, Wu et al. teaches an aerodynamic article (100; riblet film) comprising a base layer (106) having a microstructured surface (102; upper side) having a series of parallel ridges (120; riblets), a discontinuous printed layer (108) disposed on an underlying printable layer (110), and an adhesive layer (124) that extends across and directly contacts the printable layer ([0028], [0031], [0034], [0038], Figs. 1-2). The base layer and printable layer together are taken to correspond to the claimed film layer. Wu et al. teaches that the adhesive layer allows the aerodynamic article to be applied and secured to the surface of a suitable substrate, such as the external surface of an aircraft wing, where the optional release liner (126) protects the adhesive layer (124) from contamination during storage and handling of the aerodynamic article and is generally stripped away immediately prior to application to the substrate by the end user ([0001], [0038]-[0039], see Fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach an edge protection as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of edge protectors, Satake et al. teaches an optical film laminate comprising an optical film layer (1), a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (3), a protective film (2) superposed on the optical film layer on the side opposite the adhesive layer, and a release paper (4) superposed on the other side of the adhesive layer ([0012], see Fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
338
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Satake et al. teaches that non-tacky powders (5) are adhered to edge surfaces of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, thereby preventing the edge surfaces from directly contacting any external object ([0013], Figs. 1-2). The powder (5) taught by Satake et al. corresponds to the claimed edge protection which is formed from powdered granulate whose particles adhere to the adhesive layer. The powders preferably have a particle diameter smaller than the thickness of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, wherein the percentage of the edge surfaces covered by the powder is preferably 5% to 95% in order to provide the necessary effects ([0013], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerodynamic article of Wu et al. by applying the non-tacky powders taught by Satake et al. to the edge surfaces of the adhesive bonding layer, in order to prevent the adhesive from contacting any external object. In doing so, the powders would be adhered to the adhesive layer such that they cover the adhesive layer, but do not protrude beyond the adhesive layer or up to the upper side of the base layer from which the riblets extend, and such that the powders abut the same surface that the aerodynamic article is adhesively bonded to. The aerodynamic article of Wu et al. having the non-tacky powders of Satake et al. attached thereto thus corresponds to the claimed contamination-protected film arrangement.
Regarding claim 5, Wu et al. in view of Satake et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Satake et al. further teaches that examples of the powders include zinc oxide, zinc stearate, and aluminum stearate ([0019]), which are transparent materials.
Regarding claim 20, Wu et al. in view of Satake et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Wu et al. further teaches embodiments of the aerodynamic article (200, 300, 400) in which the base layer (206, 306, 406) has a microstructured surface (202, 302, 402) including a plurality of ridges (220, 222, 320, 420, 422; riblets) ([0047], [0070], [0071]), wherein the microstructured surface is shown has having a flat connecting surface between adjacent riblets, such that a height from the adhesive layer to the upper side of the film layer corresponds to a height from the adhesive layer to the connecting surface.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to the claim correcting the typographical error.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 19 in the response filed August 28, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 of the remarks filed August 28, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections based on Wu et al. in view of Satake et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues that the non-tacky powders (5) adhered to edge surfaces of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (3) in Satake do not abut any surface the adhesive layer (3) is bonded to.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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) and MPEP 2145(IV). In the instant case, the Applicant’s arguments are limited to what Satake on its own teaches and fails to teach, but the arguments fail to address the combined teaching of the applied references.
As explained in the prior art rejections above, the combined teachings of Wu et al. in view of Satake et al. render obvious the claimed configuration in which the non-tacky powders (edge protection) of Satake et al. are applied to the adhesive layer of the aerodynamic article (riblet film) of Wu et al. such that the powders abut the same surface that the aerodynamic article is adhesively bonded to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application.
Independent claim 1 in combination with dependent claim 3 recites a contamination-protected film arrangement comprising a riblet film, an adhesive layer, and an edge protection. The riblet film comprises a film layer and a plurality of riblets projecting from an upper side of the film layer. The adhesive layer is disposed on a lower side of the film layer, such that the riblet film is configured to be adhesively bonded to a surface. The edge protection covers the adhesive layer without protruding over the upper side of the film layer. The edge protection is formed from a cured fluid which has good adhesion to the adhesive layer. The upper side of the film layer is interpreted to correspond to the portion of the film layer from which the riblets project upwards (see, e.g., upper side (3’) of film layer (3) in Figs. 4a-4b).
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Wu et al. (US 2019/0202547) in view of Haverkamp (DE 102018212328, cited on IDS).
Wu et al. teaches an aerodynamic article (100; riblet film) comprising a base layer (106) having a microstructured surface (102; upper side) having a series of parallel ridges (120; riblets), a discontinuous printed layer (108) disposed on an underlying printable layer (110), and an adhesive layer (124) that extends across and directly contacts the printable layer ([0028], [0031], [0034], [0038], Figs. 1-2). The base layer and printable layer together are taken to correspond to the claimed film layer. Wu et al. teaches that the adhesive layer allows the aerodynamic article to be applied and secured to the surface of a suitable substrate, such as the external surface of an aircraft wing ([0001], [0038]).
Wu et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach an edge protection formed from a cured fluid and having the claimed structural configuration in which the edge protection covers the adhesive layer of the riblet film without protruding over the upper side of the film layer.
Haverkamp was previously relied upon to address the limitations directed to an edge protection formed from a cured fluid. Haverkamp teaches a multi-layer safety device (1) comprising a multilayer security film (4, 4a) attached to a substrate (2) by means of a substrate adhesive (3), wherein exposed edges of the security film and the substrate adhesive are sealed by an edge seal (6, 6a; edge protection) ([0016]-[0017], [0036], Figs. 1-4; see Figs. 1-2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
1226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figs. 1-4 of Haverkamp, the edge seal (6, 6a) is formed directly on a side edge of the security film (4) and substrate adhesive (3) in such a manner that the edge seal covers the adhesive but does not protrude over the upper side of the hard coating (5) provided on the security film [0017]. Haverkamp teaches that edge sealing of at least the outer edges prevents individual layers of the security film from being detached, thus preventing accidental damage and/or destruction of the film [0005]. Haverkamp does not, however, expressly teach or reasonably suggest forming the edge sealing in the specific claimed configuration relative to the upper side of the film layer of a riblet film.
Conclusion
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights