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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated February 7, 2025 was submitted on July 29, 2025. Claims 1 and 2 were amended. Claims 8-15 have been canceled. Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are currently pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the objection to claim 1 (¶ 3 of the Office Action). This objection has therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 2 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-7 and 16-20 (¶¶ 6-22 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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 1-5, 7, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigoleit et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,775,208, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Grothaus et al. (German Patent Publication No. DE 102008026313 A1, cited in IDS submitted April 25, 2023, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below) and Moser et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0149759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grigoleit discloses a method for coating an article by applying a metallic surface layer (Abstract of Grigoleit, method of protecting surface of molded plastic part with protective metallic film), the article including an outer layer formed from or including a plastic material or a fiber composite material (Abstract of Grigoleit, molded plastic part made from synthetic resin and fibers; part would necessarily include an outer layer), the method comprising: in a first step providing a base body formed by the outer layer (FIG. 3 of Grigoleit, parent material #9 formed of synthetic resin #6 and fibers #5); thereafter in a second step bonding the outer layer to an intermediate layer formed from or including a fiber material to form the surface to be coated (3:5-9 of Grigoleit, intermediate stratum #8 consisting of fabric #10 applied to parent material and laminated with synthetic resin); and thereafter in a third step coating the article with the metallic surface layer on a surface of the intermediate layer facing away from the outer layer by a spraying device by thermal spraying (FIG. 3, 3:24-25 of Grigoleit, protective surface film #2 to intermediate stratum #8; 4:3-4 of Grigoleit, protective coating applied by flame spraying).
Grigoleit does not specifically disclose: that the intermediate layer is formed from or includes a fiber composite material; that fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer include a metallic surface; and that fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer connected to the outer wall layer each include a non-metallic fiber core individually coated with and enveloped by a metal surface layer or a metal alloy surface layer before the outer wall layer is bonded to the intermediate layer. Moreover, Grigoleit discloses that the intermediate layer comprises fibers of an organic or inorganic material such as metallic fabrics or mesh (3:58-62 of Grigoleit) but does not specifically disclose a fiber composite material (i.e., a material made of two or more substances) comprising a non-metallic fiber core coated with a metal or metal alloy. Grothaus, however, discloses components made of fiber composite material with a functional metallic internal coating ([0016] of Grothaus) wherein the coating is applied by thermal spraying ([0019] of Grothaus). According to Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to the fiber composite material to improve adhesion of the functional coating to the fiber composite material ([0029]-[0030] of Grothaus). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fabric comprising carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel as the intermediate layer in the method of Grigoleit since Grothaus establishes that it was known to use such materials as intermediate layers in the thermal spraying of metallic coatings on fiber composite substrates. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Neither Grigoleit nor Grothaus specifically disclose that the portion of the article being coated is a concave inner wall surface of a container and that the outer layer is an outer wall layer. Moser, however, discloses a method of making a thermoplastic composite container (Abstract, [0016] of Moser) comprising applying a metal film to the inside of the container ([0025] of Moser) via a thermal deposition process ([0027], [0036] of Moser). According to Moser, the resulting container having the internal metal coating is gas-tight and corrosion resistant ([0011] of Moser). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified coating process on the inner concave wall surface of a container in order to provide a container that is gas tight and corrosion resistant as taught by Moser ([0011] of Moser).
Regarding claim 2, Grigoleit discloses a method for coating an article formed from a fiber composite material by applying a metallic surface layer (Abstract of Grigoleit, method of protecting surface with protective metallic film), the article including an outer layer formed from or including a plastic or a fiber composite material (Abstract of Grigoleit, molded plastic part made from synthetic resin and fibers; part would necessarily include an outer layer), the method comprising: in a first step applying an intermediate layer formed from a fiber material or including a fiber material or the outer layer to a mold body (Abstract of Grigoleit, molded plastic part made from synthetic resin and fibers; 2:53-55 of Grigoleit, article molded by hot pressing; molding by methods such as hot pressing necessarily requires applying material to a mold or tool surface); thereafter in a second step applying the outer layer of the fiber composite material to the intermediate layer or applying the intermediate layer to the outer layer and bonding the outer layer to an exterior of the intermediate layer to form the article to be coated (3:5-9 of Grigoleit, intermediate stratum #8 consisting of fabric #10 applied to parent material and laminated with synthetic resin; 3:14-18 of Grigoleit, intermediate stratum #8 bonded to parent material #9 simultaneously with the production of the molded part; molding necessarily requires applying the layers to a mold surface); thereafter in a third step curing the article (4:35-43 of Grigoleit, synthetic resin component of fiber reinforced material cured to form bond with intermediate mesh layer; 3:24-25 of Grigoleit, protective surface film applied after intermediate stratum applied to parent material); and thereafter in a fourth step coating the article on a surface of the intermediate layer facing away from the outer layer with the metallic surface layer by a spraying device by thermal spraying (FIG. 3, 3:24-25 of Grigoleit, protective surface film #2 to intermediate stratum #8; 4:3-4 of Grigoleit, protective coating applied by flame spraying).
Grigoleit does not specifically disclose: that the intermediate layer is formed from or includes a fiber composite material; that fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer include a metallic surface; and that individual fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer applied to the mold body in the first step or applied to the outer wall layer in the second step include a non-metallic fiber core individually coated with a metal surface layer or a metal alloy surface layer before being applied to the mold body in the first step or applied to the outer wall layer in the second step. Moreover, Grigoleit discloses that the intermediate layer comprises fibers of an organic or inorganic material such as metallic fabrics or mesh (3:58-62 of Grigoleit) but does not specifically disclose a fiber composite material (i.e., a material made of two or more substances) comprising a non-metallic fiber core coated with a metal or metal alloy. Grothaus, however, discloses components made of fiber composite material with a functional metallic internal coating ([0016] of Grothaus) wherein the coating is applied by thermal spraying ([0019] of Grothaus). According to Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to the fiber composite material to improve adhesion of the functional coating to the fiber composite material ([0029]-[0030] of Grothaus). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fabric comprising carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel as the intermediate layer in the method of Grigoleit since Grothaus establishes that it was known to use such materials as intermediate layers in the thermal spraying of metallic coatings on fiber composite substrates. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Neither Grigoleit nor Grothaus specifically disclose that the portion of the article being coated is a concave inner wall surface of a container and that the outer layer is an outer wall layer. Moser, however, discloses a method of making a thermoplastic composite container (Abstract, [0016] of Moser) comprising applying a metal film to the inside of the container ([0025] of Moser) via a thermal deposition process ([0027], [0036] of Moser). According to Moser, the resulting container having the internal metal coating is gas-tight and corrosion resistant ([0011] of Moser). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified coating process on the inner concave wall surface of a container in order to provide a container that is gas tight and corrosion resistant as taught by Moser ([0011] of Moser).
Regarding claim 3, Grigoleit and Grothaus suggests that the intermediate layer includes a fiber composite fabric or a fiber composite scrim or is formed from a fiber composite fabric or a fiber composite scrim (3:58-62 of Grigoleit, fabric or mesh used as intermediate stratum; [0029]-[0030] of Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to improve adhesion of the functional coating and the fiber composite material).
Regarding claim 4, Grothaus suggests that individual fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer are coated with copper, with nickel, or with a heat- expansion-invariant alloy of metals ([0029]-[0030] of Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to improve adhesion of the functional coating and the fiber composite material).
Regarding claim 5, Grothaus suggests that the fiber composite material is a carbon fiber composite material, an aramid fiber composite material or a glass fiber composite material ([0020] of Grothaus, carbon, glass and aramid fibers can be used in the fiber composite material of the tubular structure).
Regarding claim 7, Grigoleit discloses that the wall is formed as a laminate (FIG. 2 of Grigoleit; 3:1-9 of Grigoleit, fabric laminated with synthetic resin).
Regarding claim 16, Grigoleit and Grothaus suggest that the intermediate layer includes a fiber composite fabric or a fiber composite scrim or is formed from a fiber composite fabric or a fiber composite scrim (3:58-62 of Grigoleit, fabric or mesh used as intermediate stratum; [0029]-[0030] of Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to improve adhesion of the functional coating and the fiber composite material).
Regarding claim 17, Grothaus suggests that individual fibers of the fiber composite material of the intermediate layer are coated with copper, with nickel, or with a heat- expansion-invariant alloy of metals ([0029]-[0030] of Grothaus, carbon fibers coated with copper or nickel can be applied to improve adhesion of the functional coating and the fiber composite material).
Regarding claim 18, Grothaus suggests that the fiber composite material is a carbon fiber composite material, an aramid fiber composite material or a glass fiber composite material ([0020] of Grothaus, carbon, glass and aramid fibers can be used in the fiber composite material of the tubular structure).
Regarding claim 20, Grigoleit discloses that the wall is formed as a laminate (FIG. 2 of Grigoleit; 3:1-9 of Grigoleit, fabric laminated with synthetic resin).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigoleit in view of Grothaus and Moser as applied to claims 1 and 2, respectively, above and further in view of McCrea et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0304063 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Grigoleit does not specifically disclose that at least one of the metals aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, copper or nickel or at least one alloy of metals is applied by the thermal spray process to form the metallic surface layer. McCrea, however, discloses metal-coated polymer articles (Abstract of McCrea) wherein the metallic coating is aluminum, copper, nickel or titanium ([0096], [0113] of McCrea). According to McRea, the coated articles are lightweight and have increased vacuum/pressure integrity, strength, stiffness, durability, wear/erosion resistance, thermal conductivity and thermal cycling capability ([0021] of McCrea). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an aluminum, copper, nickel or titanium coating as the protective metallic coating in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a coated article that is lightweight and that has increased vacuum/pressure integrity, strength, stiffness, durability, wear/erosion resistance, thermal conductivity and thermal cycling capability as taught by McCrea ([0021] of McCrea).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that neither Grigoleit nor Grothaus teach coating a concave inner wall surface of the container wall with a metallic surface layer as recited in claims 1 and 2 (¶ spanning pp. 8-9 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Moser reference to address this limitation.
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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746