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
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
NEW REJECTIONS: NECESSITATED BY AMENDMENT
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160165706 A1 to Clemen, Jr. et al. (herein referred to as "Clemen") in view of US20150202858A1 to Simko.
Re claims 1, 7, 11, and 18, Clemen teaches the claimed material coating system (article and process) invention comprising as shown in Fig. 3 (see below) and associated text: substrate 18, laser-ablation layers 13, 14, and topcoat 16 [36]. The topcoat includes various transparent polymer compounds and includes epoxy [9] which is inherently transparent.
Re claims 1, 19 and 21-23, Clemen also discloses the use of a laser 20 which debonds the laser ablative layers and topcoat [38] but not where the substrate is of fiber and resin layers as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Simko teaches a substrate is of a top epoxy layer and an underlaying fiberglass [29] in a similar construction having the substrate 220 / 221 bonding layer/ 215 laser function / and 223 top coat film and therefore the combination of references yields a laser-ablation layer that is necessarily tuned as presently claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
445
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clemen doesn’t teach a substate of fiber and resin.
Simko teaches a similar laser ablated top coat on substrate, teaching it is known substrates are of [20, 29] layers of fiber and resin for lightweight propellers and efficiency. See also published claim 3 and Fig. 3 and associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention was made to use, add or substitute the substrate of Clemen with the fiber top coat/resin substrate of Simko for producing for lightweight propellers and efficiency. Therefore there is a reasonable expectation of success because the applied prior art teaches this would have been well within the level of ordinary skill.
Re claims 2-4, 13-14, and 20 (structure and process relied upon in claim 1), see further [8-11, 58].
Re claim 12, Clemen discloses the material coating system also comprises a reflective layer between the substrate and laser ablation layers [32, 36].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection above. Clemen’s is no longer used solely for the substate as the teaching is found in Simko. See the combination above.
Conclusion
Reference US 20220193832 A1 teaches a similar construction but doesn’t teach a topy epoxy/fiberglass substrate. 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 TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights