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 .
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: an electrically conductive insert (1), preexisting dissipative layer (2)an electrically conductive layer (3), a hole (4), an electrically conductive material (5), the drawings do not support for method claims. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “Method” changes to “A method”, line 2, the term “dissipative coating layer, comprising the consequent steps of:” changes to “dissipative coating layer, the method comprising steps of:”.
Claim 1, line 8, “insert;” changes to “insert and;”
Claims 2-16, line 1, “Method” changes to “The method”.
Claim 1, line 2, “a preexisting dissipative layer” changes to “the preexisting dissipative layer.
Claim 6, the term “electrically conductive means” changes to “electrically conductive has”.
Claim 9, “wherein an electrically conductive material” changes to “further comprises an electrically conductive material”.
Claim 12, “an equipotential bonding” changes to “the equipotential bonding”.
Claim 12, line 9, “nut;” changes to “nut; and”.
Claim 13, “wherein electrically conductive material” changes to “further comprises an electrically conductive material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3 Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name DIN EN 61340-4-1:2016-04. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe DIN EN 61340-4-1:2016-04 and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
4. Claims 12-13, 15 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 12, “a metal rod” and a metal washer” are unclear. Is this metal rod and metal washer referring to the electrically conductive insert and the electrically conductive layer of claim 1 respectively?.
Claim 15, the added grounding points that was added to the method” is not clear, what is the method referring to?. The term “preexisting grounding point” is not clear either. Is this preexisting grounding point same as the grounding point cited in claim 1?.
For purpose of examination, the term “a metal rod and the electrically conductive layer” are considered as a fastener and a washer respectively. The phrase “a preexisting grounding point of claim 15” is assume as the grounding point of claim 1.
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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ball et al (USPN 2021/0098975).
Regarding claim 1, Ball discloses a method (see figures 1a, 3b, 5a) of adding a grounding point (such as a grounding point 10) to a preexisting dissipative coating layer (a conductive coating layer 14, see par. 0037, and figure 1a), comprising the consequent steps of:
placing an electrically conductive insert (a metal fastener 40 in figure 1a, details in figure 5a, see par. 0043) into a preexisting dissipative coating layer (14);
placing an electrically conductive layer (a metal washer 42) on the preexisting dissipative coating layer (14) in proximity of the conductive insert (the metal fastener 40) (see figures 1a, 5a);
fastening the electrically conductive layer (the washer 42) to the electrically conductive insert (the metal fastener 40);
connecting the electrically conductive layer (the metal washer 42) and/or the electrically conductive insert (the metal fastener 40) to an equipotential bonding (a equipotential ground 20, see figure 4, 14).
Regarding claim 2, Ball discloses wherein the conductive layer (the metal washer 42) is a washer (see par. 0043).
Regarding claim 7, Ball discloses the electrically conductive insert (40) is selected from a screw (40).
Regarding claim 8, Ball discloses wherein the electrically conductive insert (the metal fastener 40)) is placed into the preexisting dissipative coating layer (the conductive coating layer 14) by drilling a hole (a bore 17, see figure 5a) into the preexisting dissipative coating layer (14) and placing the electrically conductive insert (40) into said hole (17).
Regarding claim 9, Ball discloses an electrically conductive material (18, see par. 0040) is placed in direct contact with the preexisting dissipative coating layer (14) and the electrically conductive layer (the washer 42) and/or the electrically conductive insert (40) (see figure 5a).
Regarding claim 10, Ball discloses wherein the electrically conductive material (a conductive tape 18, see figure 3b, 5a) is selected from the group consisting of electrically conductive powder, electrically conductive tape (see par. 0040), and electrically conductive coatings.
Regarding claim 11, Ball discloses the electrically conductive layer (the metal washer 42) mechanically fastened to the electrically conductive insert (the metal fastener 40, see figure 5a).
Regarding claim 14, Ball discloses no additional coating layer is added on top of the electrically conductive layer (the metal washer 42) after step ii has been performed (no additional coating on the metal washer 42, see figure 5a).
Regarding claim 16, Ball discloses a dissipative coating system (see figures 1, 5a) comprises an added grounding point (a second grounding point 10, see figure 4).
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.
6. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al (USPN 2021/0098975) in view of Dickerman et al (USPN 10,433,614).
Regarding claims 3-5, Ball discloses the preexisting conductive layer 14 (see par. 0037) has a resistance, a thickness, but does not explicitly the preexisting conductive layer has a resistance, a thickness, and contains a material as claimed.
Dickerman discloses an electrostatic dissipation structure comprises a preexisting coating conductive layer (212) has a resistance to ground of less than 10*9 ohms (the coating conductive layer 212 has a resistance to ground of a range of 1x10*6 ohm to 10x10*6ohm, see col. 24, lines 6-7), and has a thickness of less than 7 mm (the thickness of the coating conductive layer 212 is 2.54 mm, see col. 12, line 34), the preexisting conductive coating layer 212 contains a conductive additive selected from a carbon power, see col. 12, lines 7-10).
It 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 to have modified the preexisting conductive coating layer of Ball to incorporate a preexisting conductive coating layer as disclosed by Dickerman in order to reduce an electrical shock, therefore, enhancing a safety.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al (USPN 2021/0098975) in view of Bansal et al (USPN 2023/0078494).
Regarding claim 6, Ball discloses the electrically conductive (the electrically conductive of the metal fastener 40, the metal washer 42, the conductive coating layer 14), but does not explicitly disclose the electrically conductive as claimed.
Bansal discloses a multilayered protective structure comprises an electrically conductive has an electrical conductive at 20ᵒC of more than 10*4 S/m (see par. 0078).
It 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 to have modified the electrically conductive of Ball to incorporate electrically conductive as disclosed by Bansal in order to provide better conductivity so that allowing electrostatic discharge event easily dissipate.
8. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al (USPN 2021/0098975) in view of Kounadinis (USPN 2019/0226095).
Regarding claim 12, Ball discloses the hole (the bore 17 in figure 5a) which includes a diameter, and a depth is drilled into the preexisting dissipative coating layer (14) and a metal rod (40) is placed into the hole (17); a metal washer (the metal washer 42) is place around the metal rod (40); the metal washer (42) is fastened to the metal rod (40) by a nut (a nut 45a); and the metal washer (42) and/or the metal rod (40) is connected to an equipotential bonding (a ground 20 in figure 14).
Ball does not explicitly disclose the hole has a diameter and a depth as claimed.
Providing a drilled hole that includes a diameter of 6 mm to 10 mm and a depth of more than 50 mm is known in the art.
Kounadinis discloses a grounding structure (see figure 2) comprises a fastener (16), and a drilled hole includes a diameter of 6 mm to 10 mm and a depth of more than 50 mm (see par. 0071).
It 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 to have modified the drilled hole of Ball to incorporate a drilled hole as disclosed by Kounadinis in order to provide suitable strength.
Regarding claim 13, Ball discloses an electrically conductive material (18) is added into the hole (17) or the metal rod (40), before placing the metal rod (40) in the hole (17) and/or the electrically conductive material (18) is placed between the metal washer (42) and the preexisting dissipative coating layer (14) (see figure 5a).
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al (USPN 2021/0098975) in view of Rogers (USPN 5,365,179).
Regarding claim 15, Ball discloses added grounding points (second, third, and fourth grounding points 10 are added, see figures 1, 4), but does not explicitly disclose the added grounding points are spaced at a distance as claimed.
Providing multi grounding points which are spaced at a distance from 5 to 12 m is known in the art.
Rogers discloses a grounding system comprises a multi grounding points (G1-G3), each is spaced at distance of six meter (see col. 1, lines 45-47).
It 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 to have modified the multiple grounding points of Ball to incorporate a distance as disclosed by Rogers in order to avoid overlapping grounding zones.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights