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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 2022/0002002 A1) in view of Buehler (US 2013/0209687 A1) in view of Di (CN 1066331621 A).
Claims 1, 9-12:
Flood teaches a method for masking an aerospace part, followed by treating the aerospace part with the masking medium thereon (Fig. 1). Flood is comprehensive in terms of the specific aerospace parts [0033], thermoplastic and metal materials (Id.), and types of treatment including chemical treatment in the form of a gel [0034]. The masking medium includes an adhesive tape and sealant [0036].
Flood does not explicitly teach sulfonation as the particular treatment.
However, Buehler teaches a process for treating thermoplastic by sulfonation in order to improve the adhesion relative to a subsequent painting step [0001]. Buehler’s sulfonation is vapor phase and includes sulfur trioxide followed by neutralizing with ammonium [0011].
Additionally, Di teaches a method for improving wettability of PEEK that includes sulfonation by application of concentrated sulfuric acid fluid.
It is noted that the combination does teach pretreatment of a part prior to further coating. The steps of removing the sulfonation fluid and washing the thermoplastic article would have been obvious in the context of pretreatment of a part prior to further coating because the pretreatment chemical is not intended to remain indefinity on the article and washing prepares the surface for further coating by removing contaminates or other interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Flood wherein the chemical treatment is sulfonation using concentrated sulfuric acid followed by neutralization. The inclusion of removal and washing steps are nothing more than conventional steps for pretreatment of a surface prior to further coating.
Claims 2-3, 16:
Flood teaches stencil shapes, which dictate the mask shape, including O-shaped and C-shaped, which would circumscribe a region of the part [0049]. The treatment is applied to the masked region, inclusive of the interior portion.
Claims 4, 13:
Performing the operation in situ would have been obvious from an efficiency perspective because the step of removing and reinstalling the part would be eliminated.
Claim 7:
Both Flood [0034] and Di teach removal of prior coating and cleaning.
Claim 8:
The mask can include vinyl cutout, plastic form [0036] that reads on barrier film.
Claim(s) 5-6, 14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 2022/0002002 A1) in view of Buehler (US 2013/0209687 A1) in view of Di (CN 1066331621 A) in view of Gerner (US 5376479).
Previously cited prior art already teaches concentrated sulfuric acid in gel form as the treatment, but does not teach the composition of the gel. However, Gerner teaches a method for forming a sulfuric acid gel comprising the combination of sulfuric acid and 3-8% fumed silica (4:13-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sulfuric acid gel by adding 3-8% fumed silica because Gerner states this is a suitable composition for forming sulfuric acid gel.
Claims 18-19:
Claims 18-19 are a description of the sulfonation process and measurement to achieve the desired level of sulfonation. In this respect, the duration needed to achieve specific levels of sulfonation is a result effective variable and obvious through routine optimization. It is further noted that the prior art sulfonation processes all are performed to achieve specific results with respect to adhesion and wettability, for example.
Claim 20:
Both Flood [0034] and Di teach removal of prior coating and cleaning.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 2022/0002002 A1) in view of Buehler (US 2013/0209687 A1) in view of Di (CN 1066331621 A) in view of Gerner (US 5376479) in view of Dixon (US 2727831).
Previously cited prior art already teaches formation of a sulfonation gel comprising the combination of concentrated sulfuric acid and fumed silica, but does not teach fuming sulfuric acid. Fuming sulfuric acid has the composition H2SO4 xSO3 with x sulfur trioxide. Dixon teaches using concentrated sulfuric acid to perform sulfonation on polystyrene where the concentrated sulfuric acid ranges from 80% sulfuric acid up to 10% fuming sulfuric acid (2:13-14). The range is written this way because fuming sulfuric acid is essentially super concentrated sulfuric acid and the 10% represents the mass percent of sulfur trioxide.
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 the concentrated sulfuric acid with up to 10% fuming sulfuric acid because Dixon teaches that this range is suitable for sulfonation treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759