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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks, see (Pgs. 1 – 2), filed on (1 – 15 – 2026), with respect to the amended feature(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WoTech (Chemically Deposited Nickel and Nickel Dispersion Layers, hereinafter WoTech) in view of Huntingdale Electroplating (Electroless Nickel, 2019, hereinafter Huntingdale) in view of Myung-ho et al. (KR 20060058258 A, hereinafter Myung-ho) and in further view of Gutmann et al. (WO 1994005479 A1, hereinafter Gutmann).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim(s) 15 is/are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8 – 10, 12 – 14, drawn to a mold for injection molding, classified in B29C 45/37
II. Claim(s) 15, drawn to a method for producing a mold, classified in B29C 33/56.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 15 is / are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
(Inventions I and II) are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, namely the product could be made so that it does utilize a heat treatment to the amorphous electroless coating to convert the amorphous electroless nickel into crystalline nickel, instead it may be already deposited as the crystalline nickel.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coating comprises electroless nickel and one or more of aluminum oxide and silicon carbide particles must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4, 9 – 10 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WoTech (Chemically Deposited Nickel and Nickel Dispersion Layers, hereinafter WoTech) in view of Huntingdale Electroplating (Electroless Nickel, 2019, hereinafter Huntingdale) in view of Myung-ho et al. (KR 20060058258 A, hereinafter Myung-ho) and in further view of Gutmann et al. (WO 1994005479 A1, hereinafter Gutmann)Regarding claim 1,
A mold for injection molding comprising:
a mold body with a surface, the mold body having a hardness at or between 20 HRC and 70 HRC; and
a coating applied on the surface of the mold body, the coating having an outer surface that defines an exposed surface of the mold,
wherein the coating comprises electroless nickel and
one or more of aluminum oxide and silicon carbide particles,
wherein the outer surface of the coating has a lower roughness level than the surface of the mold body,
wherein the surface of the mold body has nanoscopic asperities and microscopic asperities,
wherein the coating flattens the nanoscopic asperities, and
wherein the outer surface of the coating essentially maintains a contour of the microscopic asperities,
wherein the outer surface of the coating has a root-mean-squared profile roughness in a range of 0.001 µm to 0.02 µm, and
wherein the outer surface of the coating has a lower waviness level than the surface of the mold body.
WoTech teaches the following:
(Multi-Component Technologies) teaches that a component is injected into the existing tool, with each part of the mold revealing different caverns and thus a component made of two or three plastics is gradually built up. With this type of multiple tools, all types of plastic can be injected into the designated cavity in each step. As such, the cavity formed by the mold is understood to have a surface. (Layer Technology) teaches that depending on the variant of the deposited nickel-phosphorus layers, the layer hardness is between 30 HRC (demoulding aid) and up to 72 HRC (wear protection).
(Layer Technology) teaches that chemically deposited nickel coatings are initially able to cover the existing surfaces down to the micro range without changing the structure. This allows the tool manufacturer to machine his tool to the final contour - all that needs to be taken into account is the change in dimensions caused by the applied layer itself.
(Layer Technology) teaches that good corrosion protection is actually included in all nickel variants, as the nickel-phosphorus alloy produced is one of the most durable coatings.
(Injection Molding Optical Parts) states that by applying chemically deposited nickel layers with dispersion materials, the service life of the tools could be significantly increased and the cycle time reduced. Another advantage is the possibility of mechanically polishing the surface of the cavities. Highlighting, that polishing the chemically deposited nickel layers is understood to provide a lower roughness level.
(Injection Molding of Optical Parts) teaches that the tools used to manufacture reflectors are equipped with surface structures in the range of a few micrometers. Where the tools surface structures are understood to provide asperities. (Coating Errors and Their Sources) teaches that the adhesion between the base material and the metallic coating is based on direct contact between the atoms of both materials and on mechanical anchoring. As such, the adhesion of the metallic coating to the base material at an atomic level is understood to provide a metallic coating that follows the contour of the base material surface and thus contour of the surface structures / microscopic asperities.
& h.) (Layer Technology) teaches that the chemically deposited nickel coatings are initially able to cover the existing surfaces without changing the structure down to the micro level. This allows the tool manufacturer to process his tool to the final contour. As such, surfaces i.e., surface structures in the range of a few micrometers are understood to be persevered, while structure below the micro level, i.e., nano are understood to be altered.
Regarding Claim 1, WoTech is silent on the electroless nickel coating comprising particles of Al2O3 and/or SiC. In analogous art for an electroless nickel coating deposited onto the surface of an article, (Abstract), Huntingdale suggests details regarding the electroless nickel coating comprising particles of Al2O3 and/or SiC, and in this regard, Huntingdale teaches the following
(Historical overview of Electroless Nickel) teaches that during the 1954-59 period, Gutzeit at GATC (General American Transportation Corporation) worked on full scale development of electroless plating by chemical reduction alone, as an alternate process to conventional electroplating. Initially, the co-deposition of particles was carried out for electrodepositing Ni-Cr by Odekerken, during the year of 1966. In that study, in an intermediate layer, finely powdered particles like aluminum oxide, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin were distributed within a metallic matrix. A layer in the coating is composite but other parts of the coating are not. The first commercial application of their work used the electroless Ni-SiC coatings on an internal combustion engine and another commercial composite incorporating polytetrafluoroethylene (Ni-P-PTFE) was co-deposited, during the year of 1981. However, the co-deposition of diamond and PTFE particles was more difficult, than the composites incorporating Al2O3 or SiC. The feasibility to incorporate the fine second phase particles, in submicron to nano size, within a metal/alloy matrix initiated a new generation of composite coatings. Accordingly, the incorporation of Al2O3 and/or SiC particles into an electroless Ni- Al2O3 and/or Ni-SiC coating onto a substrate is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech. By further modifying the electroless nickel coating to comprise Al2O3 and/or SiC, as taught by Huntingdale. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an electroless nickel coating to comprise Al2O3 and/or SiC as it provides for fabricating a coating in which portions of the coating are composite but other parts of the coating are not, (Historical overview of Electroless Nickel). Accodignly, the use of a known material, i.e., Al2O3 and/or SiC for its indexed use specifically coating a substrate / surface, in a known environment, namely electroless nickel coating provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 1, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale is silent on the surface of the mold body has nanoscopic asperities and wherein the coating flattens the nanoscopic asperities. In analogous art for a mold that comprises a coating of nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold, (Abstract), Myung-ho suggests details regarding the mold body has nanoscopic asperities and wherein the coating flattens the nanoscopic asperities, and in this regard, Myung-ho teaches the following
([0003]) teaches that (Fig. 1) illustrates a predetermined pattern that is formed on the surface of a mold in order to mold a plastic product having a matt or low gloss surface. Then metal coating of a certain thickness is used to remove the following fine patterns in a predetermined range. ([0021]) teaches that in addition, the maximum unevenness of the pattern has a height of 1 μm or more and the minimum unevenness of the fine pattern forms a pattern to have a height of 1 μm or less, and the metal layer has a thickness within the range of 1 to 200 μm. ([0035]) teaches that (Fig. 1) illustrates a cross-sectional view of a mold surface from which a fine pattern of 0.1 micrometers or less. As such, the mold is understood to be provided with both nanoscopic asperities / a fine pattern with a height of 1 μm or less, including an example with 0.1 micrometers or less (100 nm or less) and a pattern / microscopic asperities with a height of 1 μm or more.
([0003]) teaches that (Fig. 1) illustrates a predetermined pattern that is formed on the surface of a mold in order to mold a plastic product having a matt or low gloss surface. Then metal coating of a certain thickness is used to remove the following fine patterns in a predetermined range. ([0021]) teaches that in addition, the maximum unevenness of the pattern has a height of 1 μm or more and the minimum unevenness of the fine pattern forms a pattern to have a height of 1 μm or less, and the metal layer has a thickness within the range of 1 to 200 μm. As such, providing a metal layer coating with a thickness within the range of 1 to 200 μm is understood to coat and flatten the nanoscopic asperities with a height of 1 μm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech as modified by Huntingdale. By further modifying the mold to include a pattern with a predetermined height, a fine pattern with a minimum unevenness less than the pattern, and a metal layer coating having a thickness larger than the fine pattern, as taught by Myung-ho. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a pattern with a predetermined height, a fine pattern with a minimum unevenness less than the pattern, and a metal layer coating having a thickness larger than the fine pattern provides for a mold for molding a plastic product having matte or low gloss plastic products without surface stains, ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 1, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho is silent on the roughness level of the coating features and the surface of the mold body and the coatings surface roughness value (Ra). In analogous art for the production of a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold, (Abstract), Gutmann suggests details regarding the roughness level of the coating features and the surface of the mold body and in this regard, Gutmann teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
680
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 21, lines 24 – 28) teaches that the mold described herein has a mean average roughness Ra of less than about .1 – .2 micrometers. With (Pg. 23, Table III) giving various examples of the average roughness Ra with the “per invention” column giving a range of example from 0.04 to 2.4 µm Accordingly, the bottom value of the range, 0.04 µm is only slight larger than applicants upper value of 0.02 µm. Noting that Gutmann emphasis average roughness Ra of less than the range disclosed as such aim and direction of average roughness Ra is to one with less average roughness Ra not more. As such, the range disclosed by Gutmann is found to be close but not overlapping, with a teaching to suggest that achieving a lower / the lowest average roughness Ra is preferably. Accordingly, the case law for close but not overlapping range may be recited. Where, here, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2144.
(Pg. 7, lines 22 – 26) teaches that (Fig. 3A) and (Fig. 3B) show a sample before and after deposition of an electroless plated layer on the primer layer. As shown in the images, the mold body of (Fig. 3B), i.e., after deposition the electroless layer is found to be less microscopic roughness than the mold (before) in (Fig. 3A). Adding, that coating is found to have a lower waviness than that of the uncoated mold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho. By further modifying the surface microscopic roughness of the coating to be lower than that of the mold, as taught by Gutmann. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a coating that is smoother than that of the mold provides for molded articles having better properties such as a severe and more uniform birefringence, less stress, a smoother surface finish and better optical properties, (Pg. 26, lines 4 – 7).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the coating has a thickness in a range of 2 µm to 50 µm.
WoTech teaches the following:
(Layer Technology) teaches that in many cases, thicknesses between 5 µm and 30 µm are recommended.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the outer surface of the coating has a lower nanoscopic roughness level and/or a lower microscopic roughness level than the surface of the mold body.
Regarding Claim 4, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale is silent on the roughness level of the coating features and the surface of the mold body. In analogous art as applied above, Myung-ho suggests details regarding the mold body has nanoscopic asperities and wherein the coating flattens the nanoscopic asperities, and in this regard, Myung-ho teaches the following
([0003]) teaches that (Fig. 1) illustrates a predetermined pattern that is formed on the surface of a mold in order to mold a plastic product having a matt or low gloss surface. Then metal coating of a certain thickness is used to remove the following fine patterns in a predetermined range. ([0021]) teaches that in addition, the maximum unevenness of the pattern has a height of 1 μm or more and the minimum unevenness of the fine pattern forms a pattern to have a height of 1 μm or less, and the metal layer has a thickness within the range of 1 to 200 μm. As such, providing a metal layer coating with a thickness within the range of 1 to 200 μm is understood to coat and flatten the nanoscopic asperities with a height of 1 μm or less, thus providing for an outer surface of the coating has a lower nanoscopic roughness level.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 4, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho is silent on the roughness level of the coating features and the surface of the mold body. In analogous art as applied above, Gutmann suggests details regarding the roughness level of the coating features and the surface of the mold body and in this regard, Gutmann teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
680
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Pg. 7, lines 22-26) teaches that (Fig. 3A) and (Fig. 3B) show a sample before and after deposition of an electroless plated layer on the primer layer. As shown in the images, the mold body of (Fig. 3B), i.e., after deposition the electroless layer is found to be less microscopic roughness than the mold (before) in (Fig. 3A). Adding, that coating is found to have a lower waviness than that of the uncoated mold.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding claim 9 & 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the coating features a hardness in a range of 30 HRC to 80 HRC.
Wherein the coating features a hardness in a range of 65 HRC to 75 HRC.
WoTech teaches the following:
& 13a.) (Layer Technology) teaches that depending on the variant of the deposited nickel-phosphorus layers, the layer hardness is between 30 HRC (demoulding aid) and up to 72 HRC (wear protection).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the mold body comprises a metallic material.
WoTech teaches the following:
(Plaster Prevention and Demoulding Aid) the layer can be deposited on all common base materials for plastic injection molds (steel, copper, aluminum).
B.) Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WoTech in view of Huntingdale in view of Myung-ho in view of Gutmann and in further view of Suhail et al. (Vision Based System for Surface Roughness, 2018, hereinafter Suhail)Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the outer surface of the coating has an average absolute profile slope in a range of 0.01° to 0.5°.
Regarding Claim 6, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann is silent on the average absolute profile slope. In analogous art for the production of a surface that comprises a coating deposited onto the surface, Suhail suggests details regarding average absolute profile slope and in this regard, Suhail teaches the following:
(Pg. 2, 2. Surface Roughness Parameters) teaches that to designate a surface two or more surface roughness parameters usually used to calculate the roughness in the two-dimensional (2D) or in the three-dimensional (3D) forms. Adding that, the Rda the arithmetic mean slope of surface profile which is termed as the mean absolute profile slope over the measurement length. Where, ∆i is deviations in the slope. (Table 1) gives various roughness values for the work pieces measured, with a range of 2.89 to 3.89 given for Rda. With (Pg. 11) adding that the (Rda) was found to correlate well with the slopes at various points on the free surface that are responsible for the reflection of light rays. As such, optimizing and tailoring the profile slope is understood to impact the reflection of electromagnetic (light) rays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann. By further modifying the absolute profile slope of the surface finish, as taught by Suhail. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized and tailored surface profile slope provides a means for tailoring and augmenting properties of the surface including the reflection of light rays, (Pg. 11). Additionally, that the case law for result effective variables may be recited due to the impact that the surface profile slope has on the reflection of light rays. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, changing the slope of the surface is understood to ultimately be a change of shape i.e., the same shape but more or less steep. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
C.) Claim(s) 8 & 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WoTech in view of Huntingdale in view of Myung-ho in view of Gutmann and in further view of Baumgartner et al. (US 5388803 A, hereinafter Baumgartner)
Regarding claim(s) 8 & 12 as applied to claim 1 receptively,
Wherein the electroless nickel comprises phosphorus at a portion in a range of 3 at.% to 14 at.%.
Wherein the electroless nickel comprises phosphorus at a portion in a range of 6 at.% to 9 at.%.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim(s) 8 & 12, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann teaches the image provided, namely an electroless nickel layer 24. WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann is silent on the electroless nickel comprises phosphorus at a portion. In analogous art to produce a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold, Baumgartner suggests details regarding the electroless nickel comprises phosphorus at a portion and in this regard, Baumgartner teaches the following:
& 12a.) (Col. 3, lines 47 – 48) teaches that a first phosphorous-rich nickel layer (e.g., P > 8%) is formed on the insulating layer. As such, a phosphorus content of at least 8% is disclosed, which falls within the range for both claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann. By further modifying the phosphorous content of the phosphorous-nickel coating to be 8% or larger, as taught by Baumgartner. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a phosphorous-nickel coating with a phosphorous content of 8 % or larger provides for a resistance to abrasion and attack by chemical agents, (Col. 3, lines 47 – 50).
D.) Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WoTech in view of Huntingdale in view of Myung-ho in view of Gutmann and in further view of Fujimoto et al. (US 20100027122 A1, hereinafter Fujimoto)
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the outer surface of the coating includes a surface pattern corresponding to a patterned surface of an optical component having diffusors, diffractive elements, holographic elements, or a combination thereof.
WoTech teaches the following:
(Injection Molding of Optical Parts) teaches that the tools used to manufacture reflectors are equipped with surface structures in the range of a few micrometers.
Regarding Claim 14, WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann is silent on the surface structures comprising a diffusors, diffractive elements, holographic elements, or a combination thereof. In analogous art for a mold for forming an optical element includes: a surface including a plurality of grooves, (Abstract), Fujimoto suggests details regarding the grooves comprising a diffusors, diffractive elements, holographic elements, or a combination thereof, and in this regard, Fujimoto teaches the following:
([0028]) teaches that the invention provides a mold for molding an optical element and its manufacturing method which are epochal not to be obtained by the prior art and which can control variation of, for example, optical elements with diffractive structures caused per respective molds for molding the optical elements, while securing required efficiency in the optical elements. ([0029]) adding that each of FIG. 1( a) and FIG. 1( b) shows an example of a diffractive structure. As such, the mold with diffractive structures for forming an optical element is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for a mold that comprises a coating of electroless nickel deposited onto the surface of the mold of WoTech as modified by Huntingdale and Myung-ho and Gutmann. By further modifying the surface structures to comprise diffractive structures, as taught by Fujimoto. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include surface structures that comprise diffractive structure, and /or holograms as it provides for forming a diffractive structure on the optical surface to improve an optical property by its diffractive effects, ([0002]) and for forming optical elements each having a diffractive structure, ([0046]). Accordingly, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the case law for the change of shape may be recited regarding the surface structures. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (EP 0489335 A1) – ([0021]) teaches that in one variation, the second sublayer is either an electroless nickel-boron alloy or an electroless nickel-phosphorus alloy both of which exhibit good oxidation and abrasion resistance. Such materials facilitate application to complex shapes while maintaining uniform thicknesses. In another variation, the second sublayer 26 comprises a composite of an electroless nickel coating and an abrasion resistant particulate material such as SiC, BN, Al₂O₃, WC or diamond.
Seshadri (Electroless Nickel Plating Formulation For Automotive And Mechanical Parts, 2016, https://www.pfonline.com/cdn/cms/electroless%20nickel%20ram.pdf) – teaches that the following list of metals may be deposited by electro less plating technique on various substrates is as given below: Metals deposited by electro less plating technique are: 1. Copper, 2. Nickel, viz., a. Nickel-Boron alloy b. Nickel-phosphorus alloy, c. Nickel-Teflon composite, Nickel-Sic,Nickel-Al2O3 etc., 3 Arsenic, 4.Cobalt, 5.Chromium, 6.Iron etc., on various substrates.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights