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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 July 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2023/0107417 to E. Pierce, effectively filed 04 October 2021, (“Pierce”).
With regard to Claim 1, Pierce teaches a seal application method for aircraft hat stringers, i.e. target objects featuring narrow and hollow features (see Pierce at Abstract; FIG. 9; ¶¶ [0017]-[0018]; compare Pierce FIGs. 3B, 6A, 10A-10D with instant FIGs. 1, 8, 9). The method of Pierce comprises forming a brush coat on a downward-facing target surface of a target object using a brush coating device 538 (see FIGs. 5A-5B; ¶¶ [0032], [0052]). The brush coating device is biased upward against the target surface thereby applying a film of sealing material thereon (see FIG. 5A; ¶ [0033]). Pierce further instructs application of a bead of sealant on the brush-coated film via a sealing device 638 (see FIGs. 6A-6B; 9, 10A-10D; ¶¶ [0052]-[0056]). Pierce discloses the layer deposited via brush coating as a film, and the additional sealant layer deposited as a bead with a thickness of 2mm or greater (see ¶¶ [0038], [0052], [0056]). Additionally, the applied sealant bead is portrayed as thicker than the underlying film (see FIGs. 10A-10D).
According to Pierce, brush coating device 538 exerts an upward force, F’, against the area to be coated 534 (see FIG. 5A; ¶ [0033]). Sealing device 638 is described as applying a downward force F against the area to be coated 634 (see FIG. 6A; ¶ [0038]). Accordingly, the method of Pierce is reasonably understood to comprise a step of inverting the target object between the steps of brush coating and sealant bead application. To the extent that the reference does not expressly teach such an operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have inverted the target object as claimed in accordance with the manner of tool operation described by Pierce.
With regard to Claim 2, Pierce teaches abrading the target surface via an abrading device 738 biased against the target surface prior to forming the brush coat (see FIGs. 7A-7B, 9; ¶ [0040]).
With regard to Claims 3-4, Pierce teaches cleaning the target surface after abrading and before brush coating via a cleaning device akin to the described brush coating, sealing, and abrading devices (see ¶ [0048]). The cleaning measures include wiping with a solvent (Id.).
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce.
With regard to Claim 5, Pierce teaches inspecting the adhesion of applied sealant via inspection device 838 including a contact portion 888 which rubs against the inspected seal (see FIGs. 8A-8B, 9; ¶¶ [0043]-[0044], [0053]). According to Pierce, contact with the inspected junction is facilitated by driving the inspection device in a perpendicular direction as claimed (see FIGs. 8A-8B). Pierce does not expressly teach a downward-protruding configuration of the contact portion as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the inspection device with a downward-protruding contact element as in the downward-facing sealant bead applicator of device 328 in order to preclude additional manipulation of the treated object to conduct inspection and testing after applying the sealant bead.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712