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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordman (US 20140224782) in view of Kuhlenschmidt (US 20100209618).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17-18, Nordman teaches a metal matrix composite substrate with a metal matrix and composite fibers ([0037]) for use as a thermal emitter in an aircraft (abstract).
Nordman does not explicitly teach painting the aircraft substrate; however, Kuhlenschmidt teaches a method for painting an aircraft substrate ([0013], abstract). Kuhlenschmidt teaches plasma treating one or more surfaces of an aircraft component ([0013]); after said plasma treating applying an adhesion promoter layer on the one or more surfaces of the metal matrix composite substrate ([0052]); after said applying the adhesion promoter, subsequently treating the metal matrix composite substrate having the adhesion promoter layer applied on the one or more surfaces ([0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the aircraft substrate of Nordman to include a painting method, as suggested in Kuhlenschmidt, because it is a known treatment for aircraft substrates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Nordman with a painting process as in Kuhlenschmidt.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Kuhlenschmidt teaches adhesion promoting underlayers ([0052]). Kuhlenschmidt also teaches a conversion layer as a pre-treatment for painting metallic substrates ([0051-0052], [0062]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the painting of the combined references to include a conversion coating before painting, as suggested by Kuhlenschmidt, because it is a known metallic surface pretreatment for painting and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of the combined references with a pre-treatment as suggested in Kuhlenschmidt.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordman (US 20140224782) in view of Kuhlenschmidt (US 20100209618) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Matsen (US 20130034705).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuhlenschmidt teaches pre-cleaning the surface ([0021-0022]). The combined references do not explicitly teach laser ablating; however, Matsen teaches laser ablation as a known alternative to chemical cleaning in the art ([0075]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pre-cleaning of the surface of the combined references to include laser ablating, as suggested by Matsen, because it is a known pre-cleaning in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the pre-cleaned substrate of the combined references with laser ablating as in Matsen.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordman (US 20140224782) in view of Kuhlenschmidt (US 20100209618) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Blohowiak (US 5789085).
Regarding Claim 7, 15, and 19-20, Kuhlenschmidt teaches adhesion promoting underlayers ([0052]). Kuhlenschmidt does not explicitly teach a sol-gel layer; however, Blohowiak teaches sol-gel coatings on metallic substrates for producing strong durable adhesive bonds with paint (abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a sol-gel layer, as suggested in Blohowiak, in order to achieve a strong durable bond.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kuhlenschmidt does not teach applying an adhesion promoter after plasma treatment. Applicant argues the polymer is not an adhesion promoter because the polymer is a subsequent treatment, such as a final paint, seal, or primer. Applicant argues Kuhlenschmidt teaches away from an extra step of applying an adhesion promoter in [0006-0008]. Applicant argues the "anti-static paints, filling varnishes, undercoats, adhesive paints (adhesion promoters), anti-erosion paints, top coasts, as well as decorative paints" of Kuhlenschmidt are not applied after a plasma treatment. Applicant argues the plasma treatment occurs after such coatings are formed. In response to applicant’s argument, while Kuhlenschmidt teaches plasma treatment applied to painted surfaces, Kuhlenschmidt also teaches painting after plasma treatment (Fig. 3). Kuhlenschmidt teaches the final paint coating including at least one paint or at least one paint system ([0069]), i.e. including embodiments of multiple coatings wherein the undercoat meets the claimed limitation of an adhesion promoter.
Applicant argues the other references do not cure the deficiencies; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights