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 1 and 17 amended
Claims 18-20 withdrawn
Claims 1-17 pending
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
First, in view of the amendments to claim 1, it cannot be shown with respect to Inventions I and II, as asserted by the Office Action, that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product, under prong (1) of MPEP § 806.05(f). For example, amended claim 1 recites "A method for increasing friction on a traction surface of a deck plate or a lip plate of a dock leveler, the dock leveler comprising a face plate attached to a vertical wall of a loading dock, the deck plate hingedly pivotable relative to the face plate, the lip plate hingedly pivotable relative to the deck plate, the method comprising:" and the method steps refer back to "the deck plate or the lip plate" of the preamble. In that regard, for amended claim 1, the process is now used to make a coating on a surface hingedly pivotable relative to a vertical wall of a loading dock.
Second, the Office Action fails to establish that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process under alternative prong (2) of MPEP § 806.05(f).
This is not found persuasive because the addition of limitation from the product claims into the method claims to show that there is no burden on the examiner is not persuasive as the product claims are examined under different search codes and different examiners, from the method claims. Additionally, regarding the second prong of the restriction, as the applicants points out, it is an “alternative prong” to the first prong.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (PG Pub 2010/0031457 A1), in view of Peters (PG Pub 2017/0158806 A1), and in further view of Wang (CN 109453968 A, English translated).
Consider Claim 1, Gleason teaches process of coating components, components of a dock leveler (20) that includes mounting frame/face plate (30), deck plate (60), and lip plate (80) ([0044], Figure 1), where the mounting flame/face plate (30) is attached/anchored to vertical/rear wall (11) ([0045], figure 1), and the deck plate (60) is hingedly pivoted to the mounting frame/face plate (30) using hinge (48) ([0046], figure 1), and the lip plate (80) is hingedly pivoted to the deck plate (60) using hinge (89) (figure 1, 3, [0053]). Gleason teaches the applying of coating corrosion resist onto those components including deck plate (60) and lip plate (80) [0044].
Gleason does not teach the materials of the coating.
However, Peters is in the prior art of corrosion resist epoxy resin [0003], where articles are coated with this curable composition for application such as outdoor loading docks (dock leveler) [0173], where the curable epoxy resin, as a coating resist, is applied onto metal surface [0170], teaches the process of forming curable coating material of epoxy resin to include hardeners such as polyesters [0107] and triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) [0133].Where the “polyester mixed with TGIC” is known as a thermosetting super durable polyester having friction-increasing materials. Peters teaches the curing of the epoxy resin curable compound at a temperature range of 80-300 ℃, for duration range of 1 minute to 10 hours [0169].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gleason with Peters to use the epoxy resin having polyester and TGIC materials, to provide coating having a low viscosities [0048].
The combined Gleason (with Peters) does not teach the applied polyester having TGIC as powder, nor the pre-treatment of the metal plate surface of the deck and lip plate, before the coating and curing steps.
However, Wang is in the prior art of coating polymer/plastic material onto metal panels [0019], teaches the process of pretreatment process of the steel/metal panels rinsing step, and sanding step [0020], then the step of spray coating the pretreated metal panels with an epoxy powder formed with polyester mixed with TGIC materials, having powder size 200-300 mesh [0021], coated using electrostatic spray at voltage of 40-60 kV, and then the curing step [0022].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gleason (with Peters) with Wang to pretreat the deck and lip plates before coating, to remove any contaminates and dirt; and the using thermosetting super durable polyester having friction-increasing particles (of polyester with TGIC material of Peters) in powder form, to provide with an optimum coating condition when coating using electrostatic spray coating process [0022].
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) does not teach the coating process to increase the friction traction of the surfaces of the deck and lip plates, when compared to the previous friction traction that is present prior to coating step (after the clean using pretreatment step).
However, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”. Since the “increase of the second friction traction of the surfaces of the deck and lip plates, than the first friction traction” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”, and the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “an increase of the second friction traction of the surfaces of the deck and lip plates, than the first friction traction” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claims 2-3, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the process of coating the deck and lip plates the thermosetting super durable polyester having friction-increasing particles made with polyester powders mixed with triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC), as taught in Claim 1 above.
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) does not explicitly teach that the coating process results in engaging the particles with the surface, nor disrupting of the particles of the upper coated surface.
However, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”. Since the “engaging the particles with the surface, and disrupting of the particles of the upper coated surface” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”, and the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “an engaging the particles with the surface, and disrupting of the particles of the upper coated surface” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 4, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the coating of both the deck and lip plates (Gleason, [0044]).
Consider Claim 5, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the process of coating the deck and lip plates the thermosetting super durable polyester having friction-increasing particles made with polyester powders mixed with triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC), as taught in Claim 1 above.
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) does not explicitly teach that the coating process (using polyester powder mixed with TGIC) results in the second higher coefficient of friction is within a range of 0.1-0.5 higher than the first lower coefficient of friction.
However, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”. Since the “the second higher coefficient of friction is within a range of 0.1-0.5 higher than the first lower coefficient of friction” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “coating the deck and lip plates with thermosetting super durable polyester powders having TGIC materials”, and the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Gleason (with Peters and Wang) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “the second higher coefficient of friction is within a range of 0.1-0.5 higher than the first lower coefficient of friction” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claims 6-7, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the spray coating the pretreated metal panels with an epoxy powder formed with polyester mixed with TGIC materials, having powder size 200-300 mesh (Wang, [0021]), coated using electrostatic spray at voltage of 40-60 kV, and then the curing step (Wang, [0022]), where the electrostatic spray have a gun (Wang, [0047, [0053]). 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).
Consider Claims 8-9, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the curing process using oven (Wang, [0047]-[0049]), at temperature range of 80-300 ℃ (176℉-572℉), for duration range of 1 minute to 10 hours (Peters, [0169]). Where it is obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art that the use oven for curing would be heated using direct/indirect gas convection, electrical oven and/or IR oven, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success. 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).
Claim(s) 10, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (PG Pub 2010/0031457 A1), in view of Peters (PG Pub 2017/0158806 A1), and in further view of Wang (CN 109453968 A, English translated), an in further view of Henshue (PG Pub 2013/0212046 A1).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) teaches the pretreatment process to include the steel/metal panels with sanding step, and then the rinsing step (Wang, [0020]), where it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art that the pretreated plates would dry after the rinsing step, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang) does not teach the pretreatment process to include the conditioning, conversion, sealing, and drying steps.
However. Henshue is in the prior art to coating articles such as iron steel panels [0131], with polyester resin having TGIC materials [0139], to provide with a corrosion resist coating [0162], teaches preparing/pretreating the substrate for powder coating using cleaning step, phosphating treatment (both of conditioning and conversion steps), sealing step (chromate treatment), sandblasting step and drying step, then the painting/coating step [0130].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gleason (with Peters and Wang) with Henshue to process the above pretreatment steps, to remove any surface contamination such as grease (degreasing) [0130].
Consider Claim 14, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) teaches the pretreatment process to include the steel/metal panels using chromate sealing step (Henshue, [0130]).
Consider Claim 15, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) teaches the pretreatment process to include the phosphating treatment as both of conditioning and conversion steps simultaneously (Henshue, [0130]).
Consider Claims 16-17, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) teaches the pretreatment process to include the steel/metal panels using sandblasting step (Henshue, [0130]), where it is known that the sand is made from silicon oxide particles, and the glass is also made from silicon oxide material. Henshue also teaches the treatment with chrome free product as primer along with the mechanical sandblasting step [0130].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (PG Pub 2010/0031457 A1), in view of Peters (PG Pub 2017/0158806 A1), and in further view of Wang (CN 109453968 A, English translated), an in further view of Henshue (PG Pub 2013/0212046 A1), an in further view of Sun (WO 2022/007704 A1, Where the equivalent PG Pub 2023/0234029 A1 is used herein for referencing).
Consider Claims 11-12, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) teaches the cleaning step (Henshue, [0130]).
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) does not teach the detailed cleaning process.
However, Sun is in the prior art of pretreating the steel metal substrate for coating [0110], teaches the cleaning step using ultrasonic (dipping) treatment with acetone and deionized water (cleaning solution) then drying [0110].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) with Sun to dip the deck and lip plates in DI water (using ultrasonic process), to remove contamination, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (PG Pub 2010/0031457 A1), in view of Peters (PG Pub 2017/0158806 A1), and in further view of Wang (CN 109453968 A, English translated), an in further view of Henshue (PG Pub 2013/0212046 A1), an in further view of Tokuda (PG Pub 2023/0234029 A1).
Consider Claim 13, the combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) teaches the conversion treatment with phosphating material as both of conditioning and conversion steps simultaneously (Henshue, [0130]). (Henshue, [0130]).
The combined Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) does not teach the type of phosphating material.
However, Tokuda is in the prior art of coating steel substrates (abstract), teaches the treatment with zinc phosphate conversion process [0330].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gleason (with Peters and Wang and Henshue) with Tokuda to pretreat with zinc phosphate conversion solution, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
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