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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 2, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of January 2, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 7 and 9-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-6 and 8 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 9, 2024.
Claim 7 is directed to a non-elected species, and claims 9-20 are directed to a non-elected invention, for example.
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 1-6 and 8 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to provide “performing the repair process in a plurality of independently environmentally controlled bays of a repair facility”, however, it is confusing and indefinite as worded as to what is meant by this. The disclosure as filed indicates using a plurality of the bays, where a bay may be used for paint removal, another bay for surface preparation, another bay for livery application, and another for surface finishing (note 0027 of the specification as filed). If the repair process is only the livery application, then it would appear that only one bay would be used. If the repair process includes additional steps to livery application, such as paint removal, surface preparation, etc. then multiple bays can be used. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, it is understood that it is intended that various combinations of processes would be used to provide the repair process selected, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend, and so are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al (US 2018/0056670) in view of Vinson (US 3920472), Lozier et al (US 2020/0299959), and Bausen et al (US 2010/0304039) EITHER alone OR further in view of EP 2641661 B1(hereinafter ‘661) and Jang (US 2020/0346238).
Claim 1: Kerr describes an automated surface treatment method for surface treatment repair (note 0001). The method includes receiving an aircraft part having an altered surface image on a surface of the part (note 0015, 0016, 0022, 0035-0036 note the checking for damage (which would give alteration) on surface with decorative paint or livery coating to be repaired, which would teach that the part can have an altered surface image to be repaired, or at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the part can have an altered surface image to be repaired). The process includes automatically determining characteristics of the altered surface image (note 0022, 0023, 0034 can determine damage characteristics, location characteristics, for example, where the differences/inconsistencies between the features of the scan of the damaged area vs. the pristine image data would be characteristics, for example, and since compared to pristine image data, would also determine what such coating was). Furthermore, the process involves automatically selecting, via a processor, a repair process from a plurality of repair processes based on the characteristics of the altered surface image (note 0035-0036, where the controller/computing device determines what repairs need to be made to repair the decorative paint scheme or livery design from a scanned image analyzed for the characteristics of the image (note 0022-0023, 0034 where the differences/inconsistencies between the features of the scan of the damaged area vs. the pristine image data would be characteristics, for example) and the treating unit applies the one or more coatings to give the repair treatment layer, so different coatings/layers, such as primer, basecoat, top coat, clear coat layers, etc. can be applied, and the selection of each layer can be considered a different repair process, where the computing device has a processing device/processor note 0031, and where the treating unit can have applicators heads with an inkjet array for ink jet printing, and also additional heads to apply primer, clear coat, etc., which can also be considered as giving different types of repair processes using the different heads, and also the treating unit can have other attachments such as a composite material repair tool, that can also be used to repair the surface, giving an additional repair process note 0020 and also note 0017 where different treatment including priming, painting, cleaning, etc. can be provided, where with additional heads/tools for additional layers/repair/processes would teach different repair processes for use , or at the least be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select as part of the repair processing, giving a plurality of repair processes, since heads and tools suggested to give repair features would have been obvious to use with an expectation of predictably acceptable results). Additionally, Kerr would indicate selecting an inkjet repair process and performing such as inkjet repair process to at least a portion of the surface based on the characteristics of the altered surface image (note 0020 as to the use of an inkjet print head for the treatment and repair). Furthermore, Kerr also indicates that the surface treatment used for repair can also be painting (note 0017), so it further would have been suggested that a paint repair process option would be provided, that would be a different process from the inkjet application, since painting is not limited to inkjet application, and this would be understood to apply a paint (since painting applicating material can be considered a “paint” to the surface over the altered surface image, since this is where repaired coatings are to be applied) (note 0026). Additionally, for the repair processes of paint and inkjet being configured to use an unaltered surface image associated with the altered surface image to support application of a selected one of the plurality of repair processes, since as part of the overall repair process, Kerr compares the pristine image (which would be considered “unaltered” surface image) to determine the area needed for repair (note 0023), and, as well, for the repair process selected, the pristine image is used to determine and blend the repair area with the unrepaired area (note 0036), and thus would be used (and the repair processes would be configured to use an unaltered surface image associated with the altered surface image to support application of a repair process)in the repair application for paint or inkjet or other repair process.
As to a decal repair process option,
Vinson describes that it is also known decals (which would give a surface image) can be provided on aircraft surfaces, and can need to be removed from time to time, where Naval Aircraft are commonly provided with one or more decals, such as squadron insignia (note abstract, column 1, lines 10-25).
Lozier further describes how structural panels (such as floors, sidewalls, ceilings) can be provided and have images/designs thereon (note 0087-0090), where images can be printed by inkjetting, for example, and other layers also applied such as protective coatings, by rolling or spraying, which can be considered a painting process (note 0100-0101), where the specific design image (so original unaltered image) and location would be known and stored in a computer to allow repairs (note 0108), where, for example, a damaged area can be determined and then using the computer to allow printing a repair pattern that matches the pattern precisely in that area (note 0108). It is also noted that repair can be done by again noting the precise area of repair and printing on a replacement part to be inserted in that area with the matching design, or the damage area may be repaired and covered with a sticker/decal that has been printed with an image, where the image can be created using the file referencing with the computer to precisely match the damaged area (note 0114-0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerr to also provide that the repair process includes a decal repair process option with a decal repair process as claimed as suggested by Vinson and Lozier to provide allowing decal when desirable, since Kerr indicates how surface images become damaged and need repair and different options for repair can be provided, and Vinson indicates that decals, which have surface images, are conventionally provided on aircraft such as Naval aircraft and can be removed when needed, and Lozier would further suggest that it is known when providing a repair process that repair damaged/altered areas (that would have surface images to be repaired) that different repair processes can be used including printing, and what can be considered painting, and also decal repair processes, where when the decal repair process selected, an image to match the previous image to be repaired can be printed to a decal (so the printing is based on the characteristics of the altered surface image, including location, size of damage, etc.), where this decal will be provided on the surface to at least partially cover over where the damaged/altered surface image was, and as to applying a first image and second image to the decal as described, this would be suggested as an acceptable process as a simple duplication of parts (here allowing different parts/layers of the image to be separately applied by the same process, such as applying multiple colors) with an expectation of predictably acceptable results (note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). This process would be understood to be acceptable for aircraft given Vinson’s teaching that decals can be used on aircraft surfaces. Lozier would also suggest how painting (in the form of rolling or spraying, so different than ink jet printing) can be used as options to provide layer material as part of the repair, and so over where the altered surface image would be (note 0101, 0108-0109, 0114). Additionally, as to specifically providing an inkjet repair process, decal repair process, and paint repair process as being repair processes to select to use, where each of these processes is a different type of process from the other repair processes, Kerr indicates how coatings for aircraft can include painting (note 0017) and inkjet printing (note 0020), and Vinson also notes that aircraft can have decals as discussed above (which would be a decorative layer), and therefore, it would be understood that an aircraft can be provided with one or more of the application processes, and Kerr would further suggest image scanning such aircraft after such treatments have been applied to check for areas that need repair (since Kerr wants to provide repair of damage of paint or other decorative layer present on the aircraft, note 0023, 0035), and indicates to determine what repairs need to be made (note 0036) and that the repair treatment can be provided that is undistinguishable from the other portions of the paint scheme/livery already present (note 0036), and given the different possible coatings/decal applications that can have been provided on the aircraft that got damaged, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that repair of the damaged coatings would predictably and acceptably include specifically selecting a corresponding repair process based on the automatically determined characteristics to give the same features as before, and thus at least selecting from different types of repair, including painting, decal repair and inkjet repair as claimed, where by determining the features on the surface, the type and amount of damage to the coating would be determined, since the different types of coating have different features such as a decal, a paint or the inkjet application. The described inkjet repair process, decal repair process and paint repair process as discussed above would each be different types from the other repair processes. As well, the use of the unaltered surface image would be suggested as part of the repair process, including the decal repair process (so process uses the unaltered surface image associated with the altered surface image to support application of a repair process), since the original image is used to provide the repair in the correct location.
(B) Optionally, further as to painting being a different repair process than ink jet printing, ‘661 further describes how coatings can be applied to surfaces including aircraft surfaces (note 0001, 0002, 0022, 0117), where coatings can be applied for repair as well (note 0104, where paint of the same type can be applied for repair), where it is described that painting can be provided by a spray gun or airbrushes (0019) as well as application from inkjet devices (note 0019, 0061).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Kerr in view of Vinson and Lozier to specifically provide that painting and inkjet application can be provided as two different repair processes as suggested by ‘661, where Kerr describes painting and inkjet application, and ‘661 indicates that when applying coatings for aircraft use, separate painting processes and ink jet application processes can be applied that are different types.
(C) Further as to performing the repair process in a plurality of independently environmentally controlled bays of a repair facility, Kerr indicates that repair can include treatments such as cleaning, priming, etc. along with painting (note 0017). Lozier also describes a repair process where it is described that the damaged area can be provided to bring the surface back to level, then a clear coating (which would act as a base coat) applied, then an image applied (note 0111), where it is also noted that images can have protective clear coatings applied over (note 0101).
Bausen describes how painting of an aircraft rudder can be provided with a letter or picture motif (that is, what can be considered a decorative livery) (note 0006-0007). The process includes providing pretreating in a pretreating station, a downstream painting station to paint and dry the surface with at least one layer, and a further downstream station to apply the letter/picture motifs (note 0007). The pretreatment can include plasma activation and/or cleaning (note 0015). The painting station can include applying multiple layers including color and clear coat and also drying (note 0016). Each work station is provided in a closed, cabin like fashion to prevent the admission dust particles and protect the environment from escaping solvent vapors and the like (note 0027, 0022-0024, 0009, where the stations can thus be considered “bays” that hold the article to be treated, where a plurality of independently, environmentally controlled bays are provided for use, since each bay would have an independently controlled and environmentally controlled interior, controlled by providing the closing of each bay). It is indicated that robots can be provided in the work stations that can carry out steps of the process such as painting or also the drying process, where there can be automated tool change (note 0013).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerr in view of Vinson and Lozier, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 to specifically provide that the selected repair process is performed in a plurality of independently environmentally controlled bays of a repair facility as suggested by Bausen in order to provide desirable processing, since Kerr indicates providing repair processing to an aircraft using a robot system (note 0017), where the processing can include various steps including cleaning, priming, painting, ink jet, etc. and Bausen shows that when providing a decorative/livery painting to aircraft parts, it is well known to provide the process to include separate steps such as cleaning/priming, painting, and decorative/livery application, and that such separate steps are provided in separate independently environmentally controlled stations/bays, that helps prevent dust and protects the outside environment, providing a plurality of bays, and so by providing such bays in the process of Kerr to give desired livery application using a multistep process, there would be a plurality of bays as claimed that would be provided as part of a repair facility, and would be sized to fit the aircraft treated in Kerr.
(D) Optionally, further using Jang, further as to the bays having independent environmental control, Jang further describes how when providing painting in zones on a processing line in is desirable to provide air conditioning (environmental control) in each zone where painting provided with heated air based on temperature and humidity conditions required for the painting processing (note 0007-0009), where the treatment can be to aircraft (note 0028).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerr in view of Vinson, Lozier and Bausen, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 to specifically provide that independent environmental control in the form of air conditioning is provided to the different bays/stations as suggested by Jang in order to provide desirable conditions for treatment, since Bausen suggests to provide different bays for different processing steps including painting, and Jang would indicate how air conditioning/environmental control can be provided to a coating zone to provide desirable environmental conditions for the specific treatment, which would thus give independent environmental control to the different bays.
Claim 5: Kerr further teaches generating an image scan of the surface to create a generated image scan and analyzing the generated image scan to determine the characteristics of the altered surface image (note 0022-0023, 0034 and the discussion above for claim 1). Kerr also indicates that when provding the repairing of the paint and/or decorative livery coatings, multiple coatings can be applied, including basecoats, top coats, clear coatings, and the decorative and livery design can be repaired with desired colors (note 0016, 0035, 0036), and notes correction can be provided using a ink jet printing head (note 0010, 0026).
Claim 6: Kerr provides that the repair process would be automatically selected based on the characteristics of the altered surface image determined from analyzing the generated image scan (note 0022-0023, 0034, and 0036 with the controller/computing device determining what repairs need to be made and providing the system makes the repairs).
Claim 8: Kerr provides that the performing of the inkjet repair process would be based on the characteristics of the altered surface image determined from analyzing the generated image scan (note the discussion for claims 1, 5 above, where Kerr provides that the repair process that would be based on the characteristics can be inkjet repair, note 0020).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Vinson, Lozier and Bausen, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 and Jang as applied to claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Riley et al (US 10668738).
Claims 2, 4: As to removing the altered surface image down to a basecoat between the surface and the altered surface image, inkjet printing using ink as the print medium a third image on the surface to create an inkjet printed image and applying a clearcoat over the third image, Kerr indicates that when provided the repairing of the paint and/or decorative livery coatings, multiple coatings can be applied, including basecoats, top coats, clear coats, and the decorative and livery design can be repaired with desired colors (note 0016, 0035, 0036), and where correction can be provided using an inkjet printing head (giving inkjet printing) (note 0010, 0026). Lozier also describes a repair process where it is described that the damaged area can be provided to bring the surface back to level, then a clear coating (which would act as a base coat) applied, then an image applied (note 0111), where it is also noted that images can have protective clear coatings applied over (note 0101).
Riley describes providing a decorative livery layer on an aircraft surface, where it is described that a basecoat would be applied between the surface and the decorative image layer and a further clear coat layer is applied over the decorative image layer (note the abstract, column 1, lines 5-65). The decorative layer is applied by inkjet printing of ink (note column 5, lines 45-60, column 1, lines 55-60). Riley notes that when applying such a coating, surface preparation can include removing any protective or previously applied coatings, cleaning the surface to remove contaminants, etc. (note column 8, lines 10-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerr in view of Vinson, Lozier and Bausen, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 and Jang to provide that the aircraft part to be repaired initially has a coating system with a basecoat over the surface, a decorative image over the basecoat, and a clear coat over the decorative image, and that repair includes removing the image layer and protective coating layer (including clear coat, decorative image), so removing layers down to the basecoat, then inkjet printing using ink as the print medium a third image on the surface to create an inkjet printed image and then applying a clearcoat over the third image as suggested by Riley with an expectation of providing a desirably repaired image, since Kerr indicates that the repair process can include providing coating layers of basecoat, decorative images by inkjet printing, and clearcoat, and Riley indicates that a typical order of coating application would be to provide a coating system with a basecoat over the surface, a decorative image over the basecoat, and a clear coat over the decorative image, and that providing a new coating includes removing protective coating layers (including clear coat, decorative image and even basecoat), so removing layers down to the basecoat (where Kerr would decide what is damaged, so if basecoat not damaged, could obviously be left), and then applying new layers in the order of basecoat, followed by decorative image, followed by clearcoat, where the inkjet printing of the decorative image would conventionally use ink as the print medium. This would also provide the features of claim 4, as the clear coat layer would also be removed, which at least be suggested to be removed before the altered/decorative surface image, since would be above the altered surface image, and so reached first, and as noted above, Riley would indicate providing a new basecoat, and Kerr also notes basecoat can be provided, and this would be removed where the surface image removed, as this is the area for repair, where Lozier also describes how after smoothing a new base coat can be applied, but does not require removing old base coat.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr in view of Vinson, Lozier, Bausen and Riley, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 and Jang as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2008/0159870).
Claim 3: As to removing the altered surface image comprises using a solvent wipe, the removing the image can comprise multiple steps including removing layers down to the basecoat, etc. as discussed for claims 2, 4 above. Additionally, Riley also indicates how preparing for further coating (so can be considered part of the removing, since occurs before recoating) can include cleaning (note column 8, lines 15-25). Kerr also notes that cleaning can be provided (note 0017).
Hong describes repair of airfoil structures (note abstract) which can be used for aircraft (note 0004), where it is described how there can be damaged top coats, for example, and how cleaning can be provided by wiping with solvents (solvent wipe) (note 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerr in view of Vinson, Lozier, Bausen and Riley, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘661 and Jang to further have the treatment removing the altered surface image comprising using a solvent wipe as suggested by Hong with an expectation of providing a desirable cleaning, since Kerr notes that cleaning can be provided, Riley indicates to provide cleaning as part of the process for removing previous coating and preparing for new coating, and Hong teaches that similar such cleaning can be provided using solvent wipe.
Baird et al (US 2007/0036929) also notes aircraft decals (note abstract, 0001). Brei et al (US 2021/0016319) notes repair of image systems for aircraft (note 0079, 0063).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the new 35 USC 112 rejection due to the amendment to the claims.
It is argued that as to the 35 USC 103 rejections, that Kerr and the other cited references do not teach or suggest the repair process with a plurality of independently environmentally controlled bays of a repair facility.
The Examiner notes these arguments, however, the new references to Bausen and optionally Jang have been provided as to the suggestion of these newly claimed features. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights