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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-20 cancelled
Claims 1 and 14 amended
Claims 1-13 pending
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 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 states “prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation”. However, it is not clear how “significant” the process should be, or claimed; and what include or not to include. Does this mean that a small amount of softening or ablation is not “significant”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US Pat 4,390,489) in view of Kocik (PG Pub 2008/0145555 A1) and in further view of Tapphorn (PG Pub 2002/0168466 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Segal teaches the process of molding (stamp molding) (abstract). Segal teaches the process of applying a metal layer/foil (46) to a surface of a thermoplastic composition part (45) forming a metallized composite part (Col. 8, lines 37-45), where the metallized composite part is molded/mold-stamped to introduced a bending (Figs 7a-b), where the metal layer (46) after the molding/stamping is bended without delamination present (Fig. 7b). Segal teaches the metal of the metal layer/foil is Al, Au, Ag, Cu and/or Ni (Col. 4, lines 59-62).
Segal does not teach the applying of the metal layer using thermal spraying metal particles (by introducing metal particles into a gas stream) onto the thermoplastic composite surface.
However, Kocik is in the art of applying protective layer (7) to a thermoplastic (2) (Fig. 3), where the protective layer is made from materials such as Al, Cu, and/or Ni [0023]-[0024], teaches the metal/protective layer is applied onto the thermoplastic surface using thermal spraying [0023] metal/Al particles [0042], where the particle after forming our accelerated into the substrate using inert gas or compressed air, as gas stream [0004].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal with Kocik to thermally spray the metal layer onto the thermoplastic surface, to provide with an excellent adhesion of the metal layer to the thermoplastic surface [0019].
The combined Segal (with Kocik) does not teach the temperature over the gas stream.
However, Tapphorn is in the process of spray coating using processes such as thermal spray onto a substrate [0048], teaches the process of spraying aluminum particles at high velocity in a temperature of 400 K (127°C) for deposition process [0033], [0039], using inert carrier gas [0030]. Tapphorn teaches the deposition using other metallic powder, such as Ag, Cu and Ni [0148]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik) with Tapphorn to spray coat the metal particles using heating stream in the claimed range, to yield a deposition efficiency over 60% [0033], [0039].
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the process of coating a metal layer using gas stream having metal particles (Kocik, [0023]) onto thermoplastic part (Kocik, Fig. 3), where the gas stream having the metal particle is heated to 127℃ (Tapphorn, [0033], [0039]).
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) does not explicitly teach the resulting of directing the heated gas stream adjusted to a temp of 127℃ and spraying pressure, to prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation of the surface of the thermoplastic part.
However, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the claimed processes and the claimed steps and claimed materials”. Since the “resulting of a temperature and a pressure of the gas stream are adjusted to prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of “the claimed processes and the claimed steps and claimed materials”, and the combination of the Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “resulting of a temperature and a pressure of the gas stream are adjusted to prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 2, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the metal is Al, Au, Ag and Cu (Segal, Col. 4, lines 59-62).
Consider Claims 3-4, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the thermoplastic composite includes additional filler such as metal fiber, carbon fiber, Alumina whiskers (Segal, Col 6, lines 26-31).
Consider Claim 5, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the metal coating provide a corrosion protection, and lightning protection (Kocik, [0003]).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the metal layer/foil thickness is up to 4.0 mils (Segal, Col. 4, lines 62-63). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US Pat 4,390,489) in view of Kocik (PG Pub 2008/0145555 A1), and in further view of Fox (PG Pub 2007/0175573 A1) and in further view of Tapphorn (PG Pub 2002/0168466 A1), and in further view of Johnson (US Pat. 5,246,538).
Consider Claims 6-8, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the previously taught in claim 1.
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) does not teach the heating of the metal layer.
However, Fox is in the prior art of forming compressing molding a multi-stack article (abstract), where the outer layer (74) are metal fitting (304/308/310) with metal such as Al ([0072]-[0073], Fig. 4 and Figs. 19-20) are placed around the thermoplastic (claim 1), teaches the compressing molding process include the pre-heating pre-forming in zone (80) and later in pressing step in heating zone (108) where the compressing molding step occurs [0048], [0050].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) with Fox to pre-anneal the metallized composite part, to sufficiently to allow deformation of the metal layer onto the thermoplastic shape [0048], and the anneal the metallized layer, to allow the free flowing of the thermoplastic part around the metal layer [0050].
The combined art of Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Fox) does not teach the annealing temperature.
However, Johnson is in the art of molding process for laminating plastic resin onto a foil (Col. 2, lines 37-39), where the plastic resin in thermoplastic (Col. 8, lines 50-52), and the foil is metal foil (Col. 2, lines 20-25) as a metallized part, teaches the mold pressing/bonding of the metallized part is processed at temperature from 0-375ºC (Col. 5, lines 5-8) with duration from 1 min to 48 hour (Col. 5, lines 14-17). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Fox) with Johnson anneal the metallized parts between the claimed temperature and the claimed duration, to bond the metallized component altogether by melting and without decomposing the thermoplastic part (Col. 5, lines 2-5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US Pat 4,390,489) in view of Kocik (PG Pub 2008/0145555 A1) and in further view of Tapphorn (PG Pub 2002/0168466 A1), and in further view of Fuller (PG Pub 2004/0058064 A1)
Consider Claim 9, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the previously taught in claim 1.
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) does not teach the heating the metal particles from 315-400℃.
However, Fuller is in the art of thermal spray coating with particles (abstract), teaches the process of forming a metal layer with thermal spraying coating metal particles [0027], where substrate include plastic [0028], where the annealing temperature of the particles ranges from 300-3000℃ [0025]. Therefore, increasing the ductility of the metal layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) with Fuller to thermal spray the metal particles (of Kocik), to provide with an improved bonding between the metal particles with the surface and to allow a build-up of metal layer [0033].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (US Pat 4,390,489) in view of Kocik (PG Pub 2008/0145555 A1) and in further view of Tapphorn (PG Pub 2002/0168466 A1), and in further view of Sivakumar (PG Pub 2013/0095340 A1)
Consider Claims 11-12, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the previously taught in claim 1.
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) does not teach the applying of additional different metal layer.
However, Sivakumar is in the art of thermal spray [0008] metal particles [0009], with metals such as Ni, Co, and Al [0009], teaches the process of forming gradient coating metal layer [0010]. Therefore, having (for example) lower layer with Al, and intermediate layer with mixed Al and Ni, then a last outer layer with Ni.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) with Sivakumar to thermal spray additional different metal layer, to form metallic gradient coating layer [0010].
Consider Claims 13, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the previously taught in claim 1.
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) does not teach the forming of electrochemical insulating (such as TiO2, Al2O3) layer between the metal layer and the thermoplastic part.
However, Sivakumar is in the art of thermal spray [0008] metal particles [0009], with metals such as Ni, Co, Al, and metal oxide such as TiO2, Al2O3 [0009], teaches the process of forming gradient coating metal layer [0010], where the processing gas have a desired temperature and pressure [0023]. Therefore, for example, the gradient coating layer would have metal oxide layer (as electrochemical insulating layer) followed by metal layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) with Sivakumar to apply thermal spray metal layer to the metal oxide layer, to form metal/metal oxide gradient coating layer [0010] for providing oxidation and/or corrosion resistance [0025].
The combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Sivakumar) does not teach the resulting limitation of significant improving of the thermal softening or the ablation of the surface of the electrochemical.
However, the combined Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Sivakumar) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “process of applying electrochemical insulating layer with a gas stream having sufficient temperature and pressure for coating”. Since the “significant improving of the thermal softening or the ablation of the surface of the electrochemical” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “process of applying electrochemical insulating layer with a gas stream having sufficient temperature and pressure for coating”, and the combination of the Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Sivakumar) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn and Sivakumar) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “significant improving of the thermal softening or the ablation of the surface of the electrochemical” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 112a/b have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Segal with Kocik and Tapphorn.
The previously applied 112A/B claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn. However, in light of the currently amended claims, new 112B claim rejection are now applied.
The applicant argued based on the newly amended claim “wherein a temperature and a pressure of the gas stream are adjusted to prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part”, on the ground that none of the prior arts disclose the newly claimed limitation.
However, since the combined prior arts of Segal (with Kocik and Tapphorn) teaches the process of coating a metal layer using gas stream having metal particles (Kocik, [0023]) onto thermoplastic part (Kocik, Fig. 3), where the gas stream having the metal particle is heated to 127℃ (Tapphorn, [0033], [0039]).
Therefore, the resulting prevent significant thermal softening or significant ablation of the surface of the thermoplastic composite part from the heated stream gas, would be naturally flow or obvious to result from the same claimed materials, steps and processes.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights