DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (US 2008/0308285 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Su teaches a method of forming a gradient material frame for a corrosion resistant sprinkler (10) ([0017]-[0021], Fig. 1-2) comprising: providing a steel sprinkler frame (12) ([0031], Fig. 1-2) having a body (body of 12; Fig. 1-2) defining an inlet (through 14) ([0017]-[0021], Fig. 1-2), an outlet (through 16) ([0017]-[0021], Fig. 1-2), and a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet along a longitudinal sprinkler axis (waterway through body of 12 for water passage) ([0017]-[0021], Fig. 1-2), the steel frame being made from an iron alloy such as 2205 alloy with 66% of iron (it reads on corrosion-prone iron alloy) (2205 alloy; TABLE B); and permanently bonding a polymer layer to the steel frame ([0027], [0029], [0031], table B).
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.
Claims 12-15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2008/0308285 A1) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Abu-Shanab et al. (US 2011/0003161 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Su teaches a method of coating a polymer coating on metal surface such as steel for a corrosion resistant as disclosed above. Su also teaches wherein providing the steel sprinkler frame includes fabricating the steel sprinkler frame from the iron alloy and permanently bounding the polymer to the metal surface ([0027], [0029], [0031], table B). Su does not explicitly teach dipping the metal substrate in an emulsion that includes polymer particles. However, an analogous art, Abu-Shanab teaches coating a metal surface such as steel with a polymer coating for corrosion resistant ([0002], [0003]) comprising immersing or dipping the metal surface the coating composition in an emulsion that includes polymer particles ([0055], [0059], [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply dipping the metal surface to the polymer emulsion to the method of coating in Su, because Abu-Shanab disclosed immersing or dipping is usually preferred ([0055], [0059]). In addition, Su does not disclose dipping coating method, but teaches electrostatic powder spray (Su [0066]). Abu-Shanab discloses dipping and electrostatic deposition, powder spraying coating techniques are considered functionally equivalent and known to those of skill in the manufacturing arts conventional industrial painting methods ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute dipping coating method for the electrostatic powder spray disclosed by Su.
Regarding claim 13, Su teaches a method of coating a polymer coating on metal surface such as steel for a corrosion resistant as disclosed above. Su does not explicitly teach wherein the dipping includes reacting the iron alloy with iron fluoride contained in the emulsion to generate free iron ions from a surface of the steel substrate. However, an analogous art, Abu-Shanab teaches coating a metal surface such as steel with a polymer coating for corrosion resistant ([0002], [0003]) comprising immersing or dipping includes reacting the iron alloy with iron fluoride contained in the emulsion to generate free iron ions from a surface of the steel substrate ([0044], [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply dipping the metal surface to the polymer emulsion to the method of coating in Su, because Abu-Shanab disclosed immersing or dipping is usually preferred and chemical bonding between the metal substate and paint layers that improves adhesion and corrosion resistant ([0002], [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Su teaches a method of coating a polymer coating on metal surface such as steel for a corrosion resistant as disclosed above. Su does not explicitly teach wherein dipping include coagulating the polymer particles with the free iron ions and mechanically interlocking the coagulated polymer particles with the surface of the steel substrate. However, an analogous art, Abu-Shanab teaches coating a metal surface such as steel with a polymer coating for corrosion resistant ([0002], [0003]) comprising immersing or dipping include coagulating the polymer particles with the free iron ions and mechanically interlocking the coagulated polymer particles with the surface of the steel substrate ([0017], [0044], [0076], [0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply dipping the metal surface to the polymer emulsion to the method of coating in Su, because Abu-Shanab disclosed immersing or dipping is usually preferred and chemical bonding between the metal substate and paint layers that improves adhesion and corrosion resistant ([0002], [0055]).
Regarding claim 15, Su teaches a method of coating a polymer coating on metal surface such as steel for a corrosion resistant as disclosed above. Su does not explicitly teach wherein the permanently bonding includes forming an ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel substrate. However, an analogous art, Abu-Shanab teaches coating a metal surface such as steel with a polymer coating for corrosion resistant ([0002], [0003]) comprising immersing or dipping include coagulating the polymer particles with the free iron ions and mechanically interlocking the coagulated polymer particles with the surface of the steel substrate and bonding includes forming an ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel substrate ([0017], [0044], [0076], [0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply dipping the metal surface to the polymer emulsion to the method of coating in Su, because Abu-Shanab disclosed immersing or dipping is usually preferred and chemical bonding between the metal substate and paint layers that improves adhesion and corrosion resistant ([0002], [0055]).
Regarding claim 25, Su teaches a method of coating a polymer coating on metal surface such as steel for a corrosion resistant as disclosed above. Su does not explicitly teach wherein forming the ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel frame forms a transition region containing a portion of the iron alloy and a portion of the polymer layer. However, an analogous art, Abu-Shanab teaches coating a metal surface such as steel with a polymer coating for corrosion resistant ([0002], [0003]) comprising wherein forming the ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel frame forms a transition region containing a portion of the iron alloy and a portion of the polymer layer ([0017], [0044], [0076], [0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply forming the ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel frame forms a transition region containing a portion of the iron alloy and a portion of the polymer layer to the method of coating in Su, because Abu-Shanab disclosed wherein forming the ionic bond between the polymer layer and the steel frame forms a transition region containing a portion of the iron alloy and a portion of the polymer layer that improves adhesion and corrosion resistant ([0002], [0055]).
Regarding claim 26, Su teaches wherein the polymer layer comprises a non-porous polymer layer ([0025], [0030]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-15 and 25-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US Patent No. US12,115,400 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of US Patent No. US12,115,400 B2. That is, claim 1 of US Patent No. US12,115,400 B2 falls entire within the scope of claim 1 or, in other words, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. US12,115,400 B2.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HAI Y ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717