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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are amended in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed December 29, 2025 and entered on January 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the new amendments to claim 1 and claim 12 are not taught by the combination of Kim and Xiong in the previous grounds of rejection, because Xiong’s micropores (concave portions) 121 are internal voids within the oxide film itself, rather than concave portions formed in a support member.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Xiong’s substrate 10 and aluminum oxide film 12 taken together are considered to at least render obvious the claimed support member having a surface area with a plurality of concave portions (equivalent to Xiong’s aluminum oxide film 12 with micropores/concave portions 121) and a core area (equivalent to Xiong’s substrate 10) (Xiong, [0018]-[0021], Fig). Furthermore, Xiong’s hydrated aluminum oxide film 14 is considered to satisfy the new amendments of an oxide film being formed on the surface of the support member and also covering the plurality of concave portions. As depicted below in the annotated Figure of Xiong, Xiong is considered to at least establish a prima facie case of obviousness (in combination with Kim) over the new amendments to claim 1 and claim 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiong – Figure (annotated)
Applicant argues that the specification as originally filed clearly distinguishes between (i) concave portions formed as geometric features of the support member and (ii) an oxide film that is subsequently formed to directly cover and tightly adhere to the surfaces of the concave portions.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (i) concave portions formed as geometric features of the support member and (ii) an oxide film that is subsequently formed to directly cover and tightly adhere to the surfaces of the concave portions) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the specification is specifically directed to preventing separation or detachment between the concave portions and the oxide film.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing separation or detachment) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Xiong teaches it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to utilize surface treated aluminum alloys with a hydrated aluminum oxide film as electronic device support members to yield a support member that exhibits a uniform colorful appearance and enhanced glossiness via a process that prevents transmission of silicon from a core area to a surface area (Xiong, [0004]-[0006], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0348725 A1) in view of Xiong et al. (US 2014/0116883 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Kim teaches an electronic device 300 comprising a support member bracket 311 (i.e., a frame comprising a support member), a front plate 320, and a rear plate 380; (Kim, [0002], [0008], [0026], [0037]-[0039], Figs 1-3). Kim teaches the support member 311 is formed of a metallic material and/or a polymer material, where the metallic material can include aluminum (Kim, [0026], [0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
984
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim – Figure 3
Kim remains silent regarding a support member comprising a surface area including a first planar portion, a second planar portion, and a plurality of concave portions with at least one concave portion forming a falling edge with the first planar portion and at least one other concave portion forming a rising edge with the second planar portion, and a core area corresponding to an area other than the surface area, where the surface area is an area within a first depth from an imaginary plane formed by the planar portions in a thickness direction toward an inside of the support member; remains silent regarding an oxide film formed on the surface of the support member and covering the surfaces of the plurality of concave portions; and remains silent regarding an amount of silicon in the surface area being less than an amount of silicon in the core area.
Xiong, however, teaches a surface treatment process for aluminum articles, where the process includes providing an aluminum alloy substrate 10 comprising silicon, treating the aluminum alloy substrate 10 with acid at the surface of the substrate to remove silicon to a depth (first depth) of about 15-25 µm, polishing the surface, and anodizing the surface to form an aluminum oxide film 12 defining a plurality of micropores (concave portions) 121 having a thickness (second depth) of about 5-12 µm that defines the surface of the substrate (Xiong, Abstract, [0002], [0010]-[0021], Fig). Xiong teaches the silicon in the surface area has been removed, therefore, the amount of silicon in the surface area is less than an amount of silicon in the core area (Xiong, [0014]). Xiong depicts the surface of the substrate as shown below, where a surface area includes a first planar portion, a second planar portion, and the plurality of concave portions with at least one concave portion forming a falling edge with the first planar portion and at least one other concave portion forming a rising edge with the second planar portion, and a core area corresponding to an area other than the surface area, where the surface area is an area within a first depth from an imaginary plane formed by the planar portions in a thickness direction toward an inside of the support member (Xiong, Fig (annotated)). Xiong teaches a hydrated aluminum oxide film (an oxide film) 14 is formed on the surface of the substrate 10 and is covering the plurality of micropores (concave portions) 121 (Xiong, [0020]-[0021], Fig).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiong – Figure (annotated)
Since Kim discloses a support member can be made of an aluminum material and Xiong discloses aluminum alloys for forming aluminum articles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Xiong’s surface treated aluminum alloy with hydrated aluminum oxide film as Kim’s support member to yield an aluminum article that exhibits a uniform colorful appearance and enhanced glossiness via a process that prevents transmission of silicon from the core area to the surface area as taught by Xiong (Xiong, [0004]-[0006], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim teaches the first depth range defining the surface area is about 15-25 µm (Xiong, [0014]). Modified Kim’s first depth range overlaps with the claimed range of 10-20 µm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim teaches the second depth range defining the depth of the concavities is about 5-12 µm (Xiong, [0018], [0021]). Modified Kim’s second depth range falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 15 µm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim teaches the plurality of micropores (concavities) 121 are formed by removing silicon in the surface area and anodizing the surface area (Xiong, [0014]-[0018], [0021], Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim teaches the aluminum oxide film 12 covers and defines the plurality of micropores 121 (Xiong, [0018], [0021], Claim 6, Fig).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kim teaches a lateral bezel structure/lateral member 430 (i.e., a side insert) attached to at least a portion of the support member 311 (Kim, [0026], [0044]-[0045], [0048], [0076]-[0081], Figs 8-9).
PNG
media_image3.png
777
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim – Figure 8
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim teaches the lateral bezel structure/lateral member 430 (side insert) is formed of aluminum (Kim, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim teaches an adhesive member 461 (i.e., an adhesive portion) is formed between the support member 311 and the front plate 320 (Kim, [0008], [0045], [0076]-[0077], [0081], Figs 8-9).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0348725 A1) in view of Xiong et al. (US 2014/0116883 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (CN 110545343 A, herein US 2022/0345169 A1 utilized as English language equivalent).
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, modified Kim teaches the electronic device as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Kim teaches the first depth range defining the surface area is about 15-25 µm (Xiong, [0014]). Modified Kim teaches the aluminum alloy comprises silicon, where the silicon in the surface area has been removed, therefore, the amount of silicon in the surface area is less than an amount of silicon in the core area (Xiong, [0014], [0018]).
Modified Kim remains silent regarding a ratio of the first depth : a thickness of the total cross section of the support member being 1 : 100 to 1 : 4 as required by claim 3; and remains silent regarding an amount of silicon in the surface area being greater than 0 to less than 4 wt% and an amount of silicon in the core area being from 5 to 12.5 wt% as required by claim 8.
Park, however, teaches an electronic device comprising a support member formed of an aluminum alloy comprising silicon that can be anodized to form an oxide layer on the surface (Park, [0001], [0005]-[0007], [0036]-[0037], [0044]-[0047], [0056]-[0059]). Park teaches the aluminum alloy support member has a thickness that can be arbitrarily adjusted, and may have a thickness of tens to hundreds of µm (about 20-999 µm) to enhance adhesion of the oxide layer formed by anodizing (Park, [0057]). Park teaches the aluminum alloy comprising silicon content in an amount of 1-20 wt% (Park, [0044], [0056]).
Since modified Kim and Park both disclose electronic devices comprising support members formed of an aluminum alloy comprising silicon that can be anodized to form an oxide layer on the surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Park’s aluminum alloy support member as modified Kim’s support member to yield an electronic device that exhibits enhanced adhesion for oxide layers, prevents corrosion, and provides an aesthetic exterior as taught by Park (Park, [0057], [0059]).
Furthermore, a ratio between modified Kim’s first depth range of about 15-25 µm to the cross-section of the total support member of about 20-999 µm (Park’s aluminum alloy support member having a thickness of tens to hundreds of µm) is 15 : 999 to 25 : 20; 1 : 67 to 1 : 0.8. Modified Kim’s ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of 1 : 100 to 1 : 4, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed ratio (MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, modified Kim teaches the aluminum alloy comprises silicon, where the silicon in the surface area has been removed, therefore, the amount of silicon in the surface area is less than an amount of silicon in the core area (Xiong, [0014], [0018]). Modified Kim’s surface has silicon content of greater than 0 to less than 1-20 wt%, because the silicon has been reduced/removed. Modified Kim’s range overlaps the claimed range of greater than 0 to less than 4 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Kim’s core area has silicon content of 1-20 wt% (Park, [0044], [0056]), where this range encompasses the claimed range 5 to 12.5 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0348725 A1) in view of Xiong et al. (US 2014/0116883 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (JP 2005042199 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim teaches the electronic device as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Kim teaches an aluminum alloy substrate that is anodized to form an aluminum oxide film on the surface (Xiong, Abstract, [0002], [0010]-[0021], Fig).
Modified Kim remains silent regarding the surface having an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 1.2 µm or greater, and a ten-point average roughness Rz of 7.5 µm or greater.
Tsukamoto, however, teaches an aluminum alloy material that has been anodized to form an oxide film on the surface, where the surface roughness Rz is from 3-30 µm (Tsukamoto, Abstract, Pgs 1-2). Tsukamoto’s Rz range overlaps the claimed range of 7.5 µm or greater, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Although Tsukamoto remains silent regarding measuring Ra, since Tsukamoto discloses a substantially similar anodized aluminum alloy having an oxide film and discloses an Rz roughness that renders obvious the claimed Rz roughness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if Tsukamoto’s anodized aluminum alloy was measured for Ra it would yield values that render obvious the claimed Ra range with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2112.01, MPEP 2143).
Since modified Kim and Tsukamoto both disclose anodized aluminum alloys having an oxide film formed on the surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed and configured modified Kim’s support member surface to have Ra and Rz that render obvious the claimed ranges to yield an electronic device that exhibits no light angle dependence on surface brightness and color tone, uniformity, reproducibility, soft touch feeling, and high abrasion resistance as taught by Tsukamoto (Tsukamoto, Abstract, Pgs 1-2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0348725 A1) in view of Xiong et al. (US 2014/0116883 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muramatsu et al. (JPH 0347937 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the electronic device as discussed above for claim 1.
Modified Kim remains silent regarding the aluminum alloy also comprising the components recited by claim 9.
Muramatsu, however, teaches an aluminum alloy for use after being anodized, where the aluminum alloy comprises copper (Cu) in an amount 0.005-0.3 wt% to improve luster and strength; magnesium (Mg) in an amount 0.05-4.5 wt% to prevent precipitation, maintain transparency, and prevent cloudiness; zinc (Zn) in an amount 0.05-1.5 wt% or less to improve strength and corrosion resistance; manganese (Mn) is less than 0.3111 wt% to adjust surface color; titanium (Ti) in an amount 0.005-0.15 wt% to maintain transparency and reduce discoloration; and one or more other unavoidable impurities (Muramatsu, Pgs 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the aforementioned components in ranges that render obvious the claimed ranges for the reasons set forth above, where the ranges that do not overlap (Ti, and unavoidable impurities such as Ni and Sn) are considered to be close enough, where one skilled in the art would consider have considered the alloys to exhibits substantially the same properties; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, II).
Since modified Kim and Muramatsu both disclose aluminum alloys for use after being anodized, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed and configured modified Kim’s aluminum alloy support member to have included Muramatsu’s alloy components to yield a support member that exhibits improved luster and strength, prevents precipitation, maintains transparency, prevents cloudiness, improves corrosion resistance, reduces discoloration, and can adjust surface color as taught by Muramatsu (Muramatsu, Pgs 1-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782