DETAILED ACTION
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 .
It is noted that the instant application 18/648500 is similar and broader in scope than a related abandoned application, 16/709689 (same assignee/inventorship), in which the claims are specifically directed to the removal of an elastomeric coating (polyurethane, polyamide, polyimide) from and underlying layer comprising a metal substrate. It is also noted that 16/709689 is not part of the continuing data history of the instant application. Clarification is requested.
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 2 and 4 are 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 2 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “dynamically adjusting a separation distance” and further what is meant by “a property associated with the coating”. What does applicant mean by “associated with”? What is the relationship between the property and the coating? Similarly, it is also unclear of what property is being measured in claim 4, as how is “the property associated with the coating”?
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 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cates et al. (5328517) in view of Reinhart (4858264).
Cates et al. teach a method of removing a polyurethane coating from an aluminum substrate (Example 1, col. 13, lines 30-40) by illuminating with electromagnetic radiation from a light source 14, wherein a portion of the radiation corresponds to the absorption of the elastomeric coating (col. 6, lines 1-15); and further teaches removing the weakened coating from the metal substrate (col. 6, lines 1-20). Cates et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of using acoustic waves from an ultrasonic emitter. Reinhart teaches a method of removing polymeric coatings (i.e. polyurethane, col. 7, lines 45-50) from metallic surfaces such as aluminum (col. 5, lines 40-45, col. 6, lines 50-55) comprising ultrasonics using a transducer 106 for purposes of enhancing the coating removal (col. 8, lines 15-25, col. 9, lines 35-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cates et al., to include transmitting acoustic waves from an ultrasonic emitter, as taught by Reinhart et al., for purposes of performing the same function of enhancing the removal of the polymeric coating from the metallic surface. Re claim 2, in view of the indefiniteness, the limitations are met by the prior art. Furthermore, absence a showing of critically and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to adjust the position of the light source or ultrasonics emitter with respect to the substrate in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness. Additionally, col. 14, lines 45-55 of Cates et al. teach a robotic positioner 19 to move the energy source housing at a predetermined distance from the substrate surface (col. 5, lines 60-65). Re claim 3, refer to col. 6, lines 5-10 and col. 5, lines 50-60 of Cates which teaches the IR wavelength spectrum. Re claim 4, the claim is broadly read on the teachings of Cates et al. Specifically, Cates et al. measures pyrolysis of the coating by irradiating with sufficient energy to break or weaken the chemical bonds (abstract). Col. 6, lines 10-15 of Cates further teaches that removal of the coating is based on the function of the intensity of the energy source 14 (col. 8, lines 25-55, col. 16, lines 10-20). Re claim 5, refer to col. 6, lines 20-23 of Cates et al. Re claim 6, refer to claim 19 of Cates, for example in which the radiant energy is scanned to advance the target area to remove the material along a path of said structure (Col. 13, lines 15-20, teaches moving energy source in the direction of arrow 21, Fig. 1), which reads on repeatedly performing the process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc