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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPS63126663 (citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter ‘663).
Claim 1: ‘663 teaches a method for impregnating a porosity of a part (such as die cast part, 1) with sealant without immersing the part in the sealant (See, for example, Figure, pg 4-5), the method comprising the following steps:
(a) connecting (such as via pad 4) a first fluid line (line connecting between part and valve 13) to the part, wherein the first fluid line is in communication with the porosity (see, for example, Figure, pg 5);
(b) connecting (such as via pad 4) a second fluid line (such as line connecting to impregnation liquid tank 10) to the part, wherein the second fluid line is in communication with the porosity (see, for example, Figure, pg 5);
(c) drawing a vacuum through the first fluid line (such as when valve is open to vacuum pump 11) and through the porosity (see, for example, Figure, pg 5);
and (d) releasing a liquid sealant through the second fluid line and into the porosity (see, for example, Figure, pg 5).
Claim 2: ’663 further teaches stopping the vacuum (such as via closing valve 13) applied through the first fluid line after the vacuum has reached a predetermined level and before the sealant is released (see, for example, pg 5).
Claim 4: ‘663 further teaches applying pressurized air through the first fluid line after the sealant is released into the porosity to assist in filling the porosity with sealant (see, for example, pg 5-6, Figure, wherein following vacuum, valve 13 is closed to vacuum and valve 15 is open to supply the sealant into the porosity. The system is then pressurized to 2-3 kg/cm2 via compressor 12 servicing both lines leading therefrom).
Claim 5: ‘663 further teaches removing excess sealant through the second fluid line, wherein the excess sealant is pushed out of the part by pressurized air (see, for example, Figure, pg 5-6).
Claim 6: ‘663 further teaches wherein the first fluid line includes a first connector (such as pad 4, or associated interfacing portions) connected to the part (see, for example, figure, pg 5).
Claim 7: ‘663 further teaches wherein the second fluid line includes a second connector (such as pad 4, or associated interfacing portions) connected to the part (see, for example, figure, pg 5).
Claims 9-10: ‘663 further teaches wherein the part comprises metal, further aluminum or magnesium (such as die-cast iron, copper, or aluminum alloys) (see, for example, pg 2).
Claim 12: ‘663 further teaches wherein the pressurized air is provided by shop air or compressed air tanks (via compressor 12) applied through the first fluid line (see, for example, pg 5-6, Figure).
Claim 14: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 4 above and further teaches wherein the air pressure in the part is maintained at 2-3 kg/cm2 (equivalent to ~1.96 to 2.94 bar) (See, for example, pg 5).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘663.
Claims 13: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 4 above and further teaches wherein the air pressure is maintained at 2-3 kg/cm2 (equivalent to ~28.45 to 42.67 psi) (See, for example, pg 5). Although such a pressure is not explicitly 30-60 psi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pressure within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘663 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fahrer et al (US 2013/0140811; hereafter Fahrer).
Claim 3: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein an initial vacuum is applied via the first fluid line (see rejection of claim 1 above), but it does not explicitly teach re-applying vacuum through said line after the sealant has been released and entered the porosity. Fahrer teaches a method of selective vacuum impregnation of sealant via positioned inlet and outlet fluid lines (see, for example, abstract, [0082], Fig 4-5). Fahrer further teaches wherein vacuum assistance during sealant penetration can ensure complete filling and prevents air entrapment (See, for example, [0082]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated re-applying vacuum through the first fluid line after the sealant has been released and has entered the porosity since it would predictably enhance complete filling and prevent air entrapment.
Claim(s) 8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘663 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moran et al (US 6,102,105; hereafter Moran).
Claim 16: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 1 (above), and further teaches using the second fluid line to drain excess impregnation liquid, and a follow up step of washing off excess adhering impregnation liquid prior to curing (See, for example, pg 6), but it does not explicitly teach wherein water is applied through the first fluid line to remove excess liquid sealant by pushing it through the second fluid line. Moran teaches a method of repairing cracks, leaks, crevices of articles comprising castings via vacuum impregnation including at least two fluid lines (such as inlets and outlets) (See, for example, abstract, col 4 lines 16-55, figures). Moran further teaches wherein following impregnation of the sealant a water flushing process is conducted to ensure wherein water is fed through an inlet line to aid in removal of excess sealant prior to curing which is then pushed out through an outlet line as such a flushing ensures all excess sealant is removed, allowing for proper sizing of impregnated features (See, for example, col 4 lines 55- col 5 line 3, Fig 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a water flushing step of applying water through an inlet line to remove excess liquid sealant by pushing it through an opposing outlet line as such a flushing step would predictable aid removal of essentially all excess sealant ensuring proper final sizing of impregnated features. If not already intrinsic by the teaching of the combination, as Moran has taught opposing inlet and outlet fluid lines for supplying and removing respectively and wherein the second fluid line of ‘663 is used for removal of excess impregnation fluid that the opposing first fluid line would be used as an inlet feed for the water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such an orientation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
Claims 17-18: ‘663 in view of Moran teach the method of claim 16 (above), and Moran further teaches using pressurized air to remove excess sealant at some point following sealant application. Although not explicitly stated as occurring at the particular duration of the broad time disclosure as following the flushing step wherein the excess uncured sealant is removed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have including a step of removing excess water and excess uncured sealant, during / post flushing, from the part through the second fluid line by pressurized air applied through the first fluid line as such an incorporation would predictably enhance removal of excess uncured sealant and water from the system, since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)).
Claim 8: ‘663 in view of Moran teach the method of claim 16 (above), and Moran further teaches the conventionality in the art to implement such a vacuum impregnation process on an assembled part (such as an electrical generator) which includes circuitry (such as electrical connections and associated systems), as performing repairing processes on such assembled systems avoids partial or complete disassembly which costs downtime and money (see, for example, Fig 1, col 1 lines 25-33, col 2 lines 43, col 3 lines 30-col 4 line 8). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an assembled part including circuitry as the part as implementing the process for repair of such a part would predictably avoid partial or complete disassembly allowing for savings in downtime and money.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘663 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juday (US 4,479,986; hereafter Juday).
Claim 11: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but is silent as to an appropriate magnitude of vacuum for the impregnation process. Juday teaches a dry impregnation process for metal castings wherein, like ‘663, prior to impregnation the casting experiences a vacuum environment to purge entrapped air from pores therein (see, for example, abstract, figures, col 4 lines 15-28). Juday further teaches wherein suitable vacuum for such impregnation is on the order of 1 to 10 torr (~1.33 to 13.33 mbar) (see, for example, col 3 lines 59-63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the vacuum at 1.33 to 13.33 mbar as such a magnitude is used conventionally to predictable enhance impregnation and purge entrapped air from the pores of metal castings.
Claim 15: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 1 (above), and further teaches wherein the sealant for the metal castings can be any variety of inorganic and organic solutions such as acrylic, urethane, and polyester (See, for example, pg 3, pg 6). But it is silent as to the designation of such as anaerobic, so it does not explicitly teach it as such. Juday teaches a dry impregnation process for metal castings wherein, like ‘663, prior to impregnation the casting experiences a vacuum environment to purge entrapped air from pores therein, and then impregnating the pores with a sealant (see, for example, abstract, figures, col 4 lines 15-41). Juday further teaches wherein suitable sealants conventionally used in the art and applied via vacuum impregnation include anaerobic sealant (see, for example, col 1 lines 40-53). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an anaerobic curing sealant as such are commonly and conventionally used as sealants for metal castings in the art and are predictably applied via vacuum impregnation.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘663 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juday and Anders (US 2010/0187813; hereafter Anders).
Claim 19: ‘663 teaches the method of claim 1 (above), and further teaches wherein the sealant for the metal castings can be any variety of inorganic and organic solutions such as acrylic, urethane, and polyester, and further curing in oxygen-containing condition (such as hot water) (See, for example, pg 3, pg 6). For sake of argument that such oxygen containing curing conditions would not already read upon non-anaerobic: Juday teaches a dry impregnation process for metal castings wherein, like ‘663, prior to impregnation the casting experiences a vacuum environment to purge entrapped air from pores therein, and then impregnating the pores with a sealant (see, for example, abstract, figures, col 4 lines 15-41). Juday further teaches wherein suitable sealants conventionally used in the art and applied via vacuum impregnation include non-anaerobic sealants (oxygen containing curing conditions) (see, for example, col 1 lines 40-53). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a non-anaerobic curing sealant as such are commonly and conventionally used as sealants for metal castings in the art and are predictably applied via vacuum impregnation. ’663 further teaches wherein curing is achieved in hot water at around 90oC, and further teaches wherein implementation of its site-specific impregnation treatment drastically reduces overhead and floorspace associated with impregnation tanks, supply tanks, vacuum tanks, stock solutions, washing processes (See, for example, pg 6-7). But it is silent as to how the hot water for curing is delivered to the part for curing, so it does not explicitly teach supplying the hot water for curing through the first fluid line. Anders a method involving case articles and sealant impregnation of parts and subsequent water curing (See, for example, [0032-0033], [0045]). Anders further teaches wherein hot water curing can be achieved by flowing of heated water along the impregnated part (see, for example, [0033]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied heated water into the porosity through one of the fluid lines in order to cure the sealant as such directed / flowed hot water is known conventionally to allow curing of sealant impregnated parts and as such flowing of hot water through the selective treatment apparatus of ‘663 would readily align with its teachings toward targeted treatment for reduction of overhead / floorspace. Although it does not explicitly teach the supply of heat water into the porosity through the first fluid line, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such an arrangement of parts since the second fluid line has already been used for removal of impregnation material from the system, and / or since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
Claim 20: ‘663 further teaches wherein the heated water temperature is 90° C (See, for example, pg 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights