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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hohman et al. (US 5,205,895) as evidenced by Vazirani (US 3,676,223).
Considering claim 1, Hohman teaches bonded joints in the formation of multi-component adhered structures (abstract). Examples are taught of first and second metal panels of titanium, aluminum, or alloys of such metals having been treated with a hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid to form a protective coating as evidenced by Vazirani (Column 1 lines 45-54) (e.g. first and second metal structures having e-coatings) which are treated with a primer coating (Column 5 lines 4-27) and then and adhesive layer is applied and the panels are bonded (Column 6 lines 3-21). As such, Hohman anticipates that which is claimed.
Considering claim 2, Hohman teaches the protective coating formed by the hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid treatment (Column 5 lines 19-26) and is considered to meet the claimed e-coating as this is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed apparatus and as no particular coating material is recited. See MPEP 2113 and 2111.01, respectively.
Considering claim 3, Hohman teaches where the treated portions comprise an upper metal portion comprises a tongue and the lower metal portion comprises a groove with the adhesive layer therebetween (Fig.2; Column 6 lines 36-58).
Considering claim 4, Hohman teaches where an epoxy primer is applied to both the first and second metal panels (Column 5 lines 10-12) which is subsequently cured and adheres to the metal portions and the adhesive layer (Column 6 lines 3-21).
Considering claim 10, Hohman teaches where the panels are each exposed to the hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid solution and this teaches where the panels have the same protective coating (Column 5 lines 19-23).
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bortell et al. (US 2018/0029331 – cited by applicant).
Considering claim 1, Bortell teaches a laminate structure having first and second metal sheets with an adhesive core therebetween (abstract). An embodiment is taught of aluminum sheets each having an intermediate passivation layer (e.g. 1st and 2nd e-coatings) thereon which resists corrosion bonded via an adhesive layer (Paragraph 31). As such, the teachings of Bortell anticipate that which is claimed.
Considering claim 2, the teaching of the passivation layer on the aluminum sheets (Paragraph 31) is considered to meet the claimed e-coating layer as this is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed apparatus and as no particular coating material is recited. See MPEP 2113 and 2111.01, respectively.
Considering claim 10, the teaching of the passivation layer on both of the first and second metallic sheets (Paragraph 31) is considered to teach where this is the same material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bortell et al. (US 2018/0029331) as applied to claim 1 above, claims 6-9 are rejected over Bortell in view of Velling and Stone et al. (US 4,276,127).
Considering claim 4, the teachings of Bortell as applied to claim 1 are outlined above. In addition to the adhesive core, Bortell teaches where the adhesive may comprise one or more materials (Paragraph 21) and where the adhesive layer may be applied in two separate layers (Paragraph 22).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed apparatus this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Bortell as this is considered a combination of conventionally known adhesive layers of more than one material conventionally known to bond aluminum and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 5, Bortell teaches where the adhesive may be UV curable (Paragraph 42) and may comprise conductive filler to provide an electrically conductive path between the first and second metal sheets (Paragraph 8).
Considering claim 6, Bortell teaches where the aluminum sheets may be passivated to provide wear- and corrosion-resistance (Paragraph 31), but does not teach the claimed connecting portion.
In a related field of endeavor, Velling teaches where aluminum is anodized to provide corrosion protection (p.2, last 4 lines) which forms and an aluminum oxide coating on the part (p.3, 1st section) by suspending the part in an anodizing tank (p.4, last 3 lines), but where the part cannot be fully anodized as part of the surface is connected to an electric terminal, such as a non-critical point (p.8, last section). Velling does not disclose where this is on a connecting point.
Stone teaches anodized aluminum plates in electron multipliers (abstract) where the to-be anodized aluminum sheet is formed into a blank having two tabs with rectangular apertures to serve as support and to provide electrical contact during the anodizing process and then are later removed (Column 3 lines 51-66).
As Bortell, Velling, and Stone teach protecting aluminum products they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Bortell with the tab connection for anodizing as taught by Velling and Stone as one would seek to include a non-critical electrical contact point to achieve anodization which would not compromise the wear- and corrosion-resistance of the final product and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 7, Stone teaches where the tabs have apertures (Column 3 lines 51-66) which is considered weaker than the remainder of the metal structure by virtue of the tab having comparatively less mass than the remainder of the sheet.
Considering claim 8, Stone teaches where the tabs support the sheet mechanically through the anodization process (Column 3 lines 51-66) which is considered to teach where this is configured to support the weight of the first metal sheet.
Considering claim 9, Bortell teaches where the metal component may include use as a wheel well liner, powertrain tunnel cover, etc. (Paragraph 16) (e.g. having outer and internal surfaces) and Velling teaches where the best place to have the terminal connection is usually a hidden face on the part (p.8, last section) and therefore this renders obvious the use of the connection point on an internal surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
Applicant argues that Hohman fails to teach an adhesive layer between two e-coatings as Hohman teaches where the primer layers are on opposed surfaces not with the adhesive, where the primer layers are epoxy resins at Col.1 lines 53-66 and where the pretreatment of Hohman with hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid solution described by Vazirani is not an adhesive layer between two e-coatings (remarks p.9, 3rd paragraph). This is not persuasive as Fig.1 of Hohman (reproduced below) positively depicts where adhesive layer (12) is in contact with primer layers (9) and (10) meeting the claimed structure as (12) is between and bonded to (9) and (10). Regarding the primer layers being “epoxy resin” as argued, Col.1 lines 53-66 of Hohman is directed to primer layers in the prior art and this is not what Hohman discloses as the identity of primer layers (9) and (10). Vazirani teaches where the hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid solution treatment forms a protective layer and this is considered the claimed “e-coating”. Applicant is reminded that the instant claims recite the open-language transitional phrase “comprising” which does not preclude further materials from being present and therefore the further primer materials disclosed by Hohman are not precluded. See MPEP 2111.03.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Vazirani fails to teach the claimed configuration and that the protective coating of Vazirani is distinctly different in composition from the claimed e-coating (remarks p.9, 4th paragraph). First, Vazirani is not relied upon to teach the claimed configuration of layers as this is met by Hohman and Vazirani is only relied upon to evidence the protective coating is an e-coating. Second, regarding composition, the instant claims do not set forth any particular composition for either the first or second e-coating and therefore applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with that which is claimed nor does the specification set forth a specific definition for materials encompassed by “e-coating”. See MPEP 2145 (VI). Vazirani evidences where the hydrofluoric-phosphoric acid solution treatment results in a protective layer and this protective layer is considered the instantly claimed e-coating using the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.01.
Applicant argues that Bortell does not teach the claimed configuration of the adhesive layer between the 1st and 2nd e-coatings, but rather teaches where intermediate layers (22) and (24) passivate the surface and then adhesive layers (18) and (20) are applied to (22) and (24) per Paragraph 41 and the e-coat layer is only an exterior coating and not the claimed configuration (remarks p.10, 1st full paragraph). This is not persuasive as layers (22) and (24) are taught to be a passivation layer (Paragraph 31) formed by immersion in a solution of Ti and Zr (Paragraph 33) and this is considered to meet the claimed e-coatings. Further, Fig.1 of Bortell (reproduced below) depicts where adhesive core (16) is between (22) and (24) therefore meeting the claimed configuration. As such, the prior rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784