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 amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the housing structure are” should read “the housing structure is” for proper noun/verb agreement (e.g., singular noun with singular verb. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to recite, “wherein the housing structure are laminated by the appearance effect layer, the metal layer, the connection layer, and the non-metal layer” (emphasis added), however, it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the “laminated by” limitation, particularly given that the specification does not utilize the phrase “laminated by” and the housing structure does not appear to be “laminated by” the recited layers such that said layers are laminated to the housing structure as opposed to the housing structure being formed as a laminated or layered structure comprising the recited layers.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in the prior office action, consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, 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.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As further noted in the prior office action, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.)
Given the above, the Examiner has again interpreted the claimed “appearance effect layer” as being either a layer provided over a processed surface of the metal layer or a layer resulting from surface processing of the metal layer, wherein the “appearance effect layer” provides any appearance. It is also noted that the “housing structure are laminated by” limitation has been interpreted as referring to the housing structure having a layered or laminated structure comprising the appearance effect layer, the metal layer, the connection layer, and the non-metal layer, in said order but not required to be in direct contact, wherein given the open-transitional terms of “comprising” and “comprises” in independent claims 1 and 17, respectively, with respect to the housing structure (see claim 1, line 1; and claim 17, lines 3-4), the Examiner again notes that the “laminated” housing structure does not exclude the incorporation of additional layers between any of the recited layers, and does not require the recited layers to be pre-formed layers that are “laminated” together to form the laminated structure, e.g., any of the layers may be applied by coating, etc. With respect to the “binding force” limitations of amended claims 3 and 19, it is again noted that the binding force(s) may be determined by any method and under any conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naritomi (US2006/0257624A1), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein it is again noted that Naritomi clearly discloses that the integrated article may be subjected to further processing such as anodizing and dyeing or painting to provide desired aesthetic properties to the aluminum alloy surface when used as an exterior surface of the integrated article or housing as clearly discussed in Paragraph 0103 and specifically exemplified by Experimental Example 8 which was referenced in the prior office action and is further detailed below.
As discussed in the prior office action, Naritomi discloses a composite of an aluminum alloy and a resin material composition for use in housings of electronic devices for mobile applications or housings of home electrical devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0001, reading upon the claimed “housing structure” as well as the claimed “electronic device” comprising “a circuit board” and “a housing structure” given that such electronic devices for mobile applications would be clearly envisaged and include “a circuit board” as generally claimed), wherein the composite comprises an aluminum alloy shaped item (“metal layer”) with an aluminum oxide surface layer (“connection layer”) having a “micro-nanoporous” structure with a plurality of recesses or pores (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2 and 9, see also Abstract, Paragraphs 0025-0027, 0043-0046, 0051, 0077, Examples) into which the thermoplastic resin composition penetrates and is anchored therein thereby fixing or bonding the thermoplastic resin to the aluminum alloy to form an integrated article (Entire document, particularly as noted above and Paragraphs 0050-0055). Naritomi further discloses that the integrated article may be subjected to further processing such as anodizing and dyeing or painting to provide desired aesthetic properties to the aluminum alloy surface when used as an exterior surface of the integrated article or housing (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0018 and 0103, Examples, particularly Experimental Example 8), reading upon the claimed “an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” as in instant claims 1 and 17.
More specifically, Experimental Example 8 discloses that the integrated article produced in Experimental Example 7, i.e., an integrated article comprising a shaped aluminum alloy that is etched and bonded with an injection molded thermoplastic resin composition fixed thereto via a hydrazine treatment layer (i.e., providing amine/nitrogen-containing compounds adsorbed on the etched aluminum alloy surface as discussed in the prior office action), was subjected to colored aluminum anodizing treatment by dipping the integrated article (e.g., metal layer/connection layer/non-metal layer) in an aluminum degreasing agent followed by rinsing with water, then dipping in a 20% aqueous caustic soda solution followed by rinsing with water, then dipping in a mixed acid liquid of sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid followed by rinsing with water, and subsequently anodizing in an aqueous sulfuric acid solution followed by rinsing with running ion-exchange water, and further dipping in water having a dye dissolved therein to effect dyeing, followed by rinsing with water and dipping in phosphoric acid solution to effect sealing, such that the degreasing and etching of the aluminum alloy exterior of the integrated article read upon the claimed “surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” and the anodizing, dyeing and sealing would read upon the claimed “appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal and away from the non-metal” as instantly claimed; and given that the composite material or electronic housing disclosed by Naritomi is provided as a laminated structure comprising in order, an exterior “appearance effect layer”, an aluminum alloy “metal layer”, an aluminum oxide and/or hydrazine “connection layer”, and a thermoplastic “non-metal layer” as in the claimed invention, the Examiner maintains her position that Naritomi anticipates instant claims 1 and 17 (as amended).
With respect to instant claims 2-3, 11, 13, and 18-19, Naritomi discloses that an adhesive; a thin coating film of a resin having affinity to the thermoplastic resin, such as a thin polyalkylene terephthalate film or polyphenylene sulfide film which is the same resin as utilized for injection molding of the thermoplastic resin (Paragraph 0031); or a curable epoxy or urethane paint or ink, with an optional primer, can be provided on the etched surface of the aluminum alloy material to be adhered to the thermoplastic resin upon injection molding (Paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0054), such that the adhesive, resin coating, or curable paint/ink can penetrate into the aluminum alloy surface and provide improved bond strength between the aluminum alloy and the thermoplastic resin (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0016, 0020, 0028-0033, 0051-0055, Examples); and given that the aluminum oxide layer reads upon the claimed “first connection layer located on a side close to the metal layer” as in instant claims 2 and 18, particularly a “micro-nano porous layer [that] is formed after micro-nano pore etching processing is performed on the metal layer” as in instant claims 11 and 13; with the adhesive, thin resin film, and/or curable paint/ink reading upon the claimed “second connection layer located on a side close to the non-metal layer” as in instant claims 2 and 18, particularly “a glue layer” as in instant claim 11 and/or a “surface pore filling layer” wherein the thin resin film comprises the same resin as the resin of the injection-molded thermoplastic resin component (i.e. “a material of the surface pore filling layer is the same as a material of the non-metal layer”), the Examiner takes the position that Naritomi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 2, 11, 13, and 18. Further, with respect to instant claims 3 and 19, the Examiner again takes the position that the aluminum oxide formed by oxidizing the aluminum alloy inherently has a greater “binding force” with the aluminum alloy from which it is formed, than a “binding force” between the thin resin film (as the claimed “the second connection layer”) and the metal layer (particularly in light of the Background section and examples of Naritomi), and that the “binding force” of the thin resin film and the thermoplastic resin (as the claimed “non-metal layer”), which as disclosed by Naritomi are the same resin (Paragraph 0031), is inherently greater than a “binding force” between the aluminum oxide and the thermoplastic resin, particularly when measured under some arbitrary conditions utilizing some arbitrary method, and hence, the Examiner again takes the position that absent any evidence to the contrary, Naritomi meets the limitations of instant claims 3 and 19, thereby anticipating instant claims 3 and 19.
With respect to instant claims 4 and 20, in addition to the discussion above with respect to instant claims 2 and 18, given that Naritomi clearly discloses that the thin resin film penetrates into the pores of the aluminum alloy and that the injection molded thermoplastic resin is provided thereon such that the thermoplastic resin is integrated with the aluminum alloy, wherein as shown by the figures, the aluminum alloy and resin are bonded to each other over the entire overlapping area, e.g. with contact areas of greater than or equal to 90%, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 4 and 20 would have been clearly envisaged by the disclosure of Naritomi (Entire document, particularly Figures, Paragraphs 0027-0031, Examples). Hence, absent any evidence to the contrary, Naritomi anticipates instant claims 4 and 20.
With respect to instant claim 5, it is again noted that Naritomi discloses an embodiment utilizing an epoxy or urethane paint/ink positioned between the aluminum alloy surface and the thermoplastic resin, and given that Naritomi clearly discloses that in such an embodiment, an appropriate primer may be present between the paint/ink and the metal in the case wherein adhesion therebetween is weak (Paragraph 0054), wherein the primer would read upon the broadly claimed “first connection layer comprises a first glue layer” and the epoxy or urethane paint/ink would read upon the claimed “second connection layer comprises a second glue layer” as in instant claim 5, Naritomi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 5.
With respect to instant claim 14, although Naritomi does not specifically limit the thickness of the aluminum alloy as the claimed metal layer and the thermoplastic resin as the claimed non-metal layer, given that Naritomi specifically discloses examples utilizing an aluminum alloy plate of 1 mm thickness with a molded thermoplastic resin thickness of 3 mm, such that the aluminum alloy “occupies 15% to 30% of the total thickness of the housing structure” and the thermoplastic resin “occupies 60% to 80% of the total thickness of the housing structure” as in instant claim 14 (Examples), Naritomi anticipates instant claim 14.
With respect to instant claim 16, it is again noted that Naritomi clearly discloses aluminum alloy as the claimed metal layer, and hence Naritomi anticipates instant claim 16 (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Claim 1).
Claims 1-4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (US2014/0363623A1) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein it is again noted that Sun clearly discloses that the resulting metal/plastic composite shell may be subjected to finishing treatments such as anodizing and dyeing of an outer surface of the metal shell, e.g., an exterior surface of the metal shell or housing structure that is “away from the non-metal layer”, to provide a desired aesthetic appearance.
As discussed in the prior office action, Sun discloses a metal/plastic composite shell (i.e. housing) for an electronic product (Abstract), such as a cell/mobile phone or computer (Paragraph 0065), and the electronic product comprising the shell (Abstract, e.g. as in instant claim 17), wherein the shell comprises a metal shell body (“a metal layer”), a plastic part made of resin (“a non-metal layer”) joined to the metal shell body, particularly an inner surface thereof, via an oxide layer (“a connection layer”) formed on the inner surface of the metal shell body between the metal shell body and the plastic part, wherein the oxide layer has a two-layer micro-nano pore structure that provides a strong adhesion force between the metal and plastic (“configured to bind the metal layer and the non-metal layer”), and the resulting metal/plastic composite shell may be subjected to finishing treatments such as anodizing and dyeing of an outer surface of the metal shell (reading upon the claimed “an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer”) to provide a desired aesthetic appearance (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0027-0041, 0063-0065, Examples). Hence, Sun anticipates the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 as well as instant claim 17 given that the electronic product, particularly the cell/mobile phone, computer, etc., disclosed by Sun inherently includes a generic circuit board.
With respect to instant claims 2-3 and 18-19, Sun discloses that the oxide layer as the claimed “connection layer” has a two-layer pore structure comprising corrosion pores having an average diameter of about 200 nm to about 2000 nm (e.g. micropores) in the surface contacting the plastic part (e.g. “second connection layer located on a side close to the non-metal layer”), and nanopores having a diameter of about 10 to 100 nm in the surface contacting the metal shell body (e.g. “first connection layer located on a side close to the metal layer”; Abstract, Paragraphs 0012, and 0020-0022), and hence, Sun anticipates instant claims 2 and 18. Additionally with respect to instant claims 2 and 18 as well as instant claims 3 and 19, Sun discloses that in etching the aluminum alloy metal shell, the etching solution may be at least one of ammonia solution, hydrazine aqueous solution, hydrazine derivatives aqueous solution, and water-soluble amine compound aqueous solution, and given that it is well established in the art that said step would provide amine/nitrogen-containing compounds adsorbed on the etched aluminum alloy surface that react with the resins disclosed by Sun, particularly as recited in Paragraph 0051 and utilized in the examples, (as evidenced by Naritomi, US2006/0127684A1, Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0006-0008; and/or Naritomi, US2004/0062943A1, Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0013-0014, and 0045-0048; and/or Narutomi, JP2007-203585A, please see the attached machine translation, Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0011 and 0026), the adsorbed layer of amine/nitrogen-containing compounds may read upon the claimed “second connection layer located on a side close to the non-metal layer” with the oxide layer reading upon the claimed “first connection layer”, and given that “a binding force” between the oxide layer and the metal layer would inherently be greater than a “binding force” of the adsorbed amine/nitrogen-containing compounds and the metal layer, and that a “binding force” of the amine/nitrogen-containing compounds and the resin layer (due to chemical reactions therebetween) would inherently be greater than a binding force of the metal and the resin, when measured under some arbitrary conditions utilizing some arbitrary method, Sun further anticipates instant claims 2 and 18 as well as instant claims 3 and 19 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0039, 0051, 0060, Examples).
With respect to instant claims 4 and 20, given that the oxide layer is formed by oxidizing the surface of the metal and that Sun specifically teaches that the molten plastic penetrates into the pores of the oxide layer, the Examiner takes the position that the contact area proportions of the invention disclosed by Sun would be greater than or equal to 90% as instantly claimed, and hence, Sun anticipates instant claims 4 and 20.
With respect to instant claim 16, Sun specifically discloses aluminum alloy as the metal of the metal shell body (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0023, 0033-0039, Examples), thereby anticipating instant claim 16.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tachibana (JP2010-042572A, please refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein it is again noted that Tachibana clearly discloses that the resulting metal-resin composite may be subjected to plating treatments, e.g. post-plating, and/or that the portion of the metal substrate where the resin film is not provided, including “on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer”, may be provided with a Ni layer (5) as in Fig. 6 or Sn layer (6) over a Ni layer (5) which prevents discoloration of the Sn layer (6) as in Fig. 7
As discussed in the prior office action, Tachibana discloses a composite material for a casing (“housing”) of electrical and electronic equipment (as in instant claim 1), such as an electrical or electronic device comprising components to be mounted on printed circuit board (as in instant claim 17), such as for mobile phones, wherein the composite material comprises a polymer resin film (2) provided on at least a portion of a metal substrate (1), directly or via n metal layer(s) (with n being an integer of 1 or more) provided thereon, in a manner to control a thickness of an interface region or layer (3) existing at the interface of the polymer resin film (2) with the metal substrate (1) to a thickness of greater than 0 nm and less than 100 nm, thereby improving the adhesion between the resin film (2) and the metal substrate (1), more particularly between the resin film (2) and an oxide film (4) formed thereon providing a general laminated structure of resin/resin interface region/oxide film/metal substrate (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001-0002, 0015-0017, 0025, and 0027). Tachibana discloses that the metal substrate (1) is copper, copper-based alloy, iron, or iron-based alloy such as stainless steel as utilized in the examples, reading upon the claimed “steel” of instant claim 16 (Paragraphs 0015, 0019, and 0055); and that the material for the metal layer(s), which may be provided as a single layer (n=1) or as multiple layers (n=2 or more), can be determined by the quality of the metal substrate, the type of part to be used, the application, the required characteristics such as allowing solder bonding or solder mounting, etc., with the metal layer typically made of Ni, Cu, Sn, Ag, Pd, and Au, or an alloy, eutectoid, or compound containing at least one of these metals, and more particularly, in the case of a single-coating layer, it is preferable to use Ni, Sn, Ag, or Au, while in the case of a multilayer metal coating, it is preferable to use Ni, Au, or Ag for the inner or base layer, and Sn for the outer layer, with more specific metal coatings disclosed in Paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0037, as well as in the descriptions of the various preferred embodiments in Paragraphs 0040-0054 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0027-0037, 0039-0054, Examples, Figures). Further, given that Tachibana also discloses that the resulting metal-resin composite may be subjected to plating treatments, e.g. post-plating, and/or that the portion of the metal substrate where the resin film is not provided may be provided with a Ni layer (5) as in Fig. 6 or Sn layer (6) over a Ni layer (5) which prevents discoloration of the Sn layer (6) as in Fig. 7, reading upon the claimed “appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” as in instant claims 1 and 17, particularly in light of the preferred embodiments and working examples wherein plating is conducted after surface treatment/processing of the metal substrate (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0014, 0016, 0045-0049, and 0053, and Examples), Tachibana clearly discloses a housing structure as recited in instant claims 1-2 and 16 as well as an electronic device as recited in instant claims 17-18, wherein the metal or stainless steel substrate (1) is equated to the claimed “metal layer”, particularly as in instant claim 16, the resin film (2) is equated to the claimed “non-metal layer”, the metal plating provided on an outer surface of the metal substrate (1) upon which the resin film (2) is not present is equated to the claimed “appearance effect layer”, while the oxide film, resin interface region, and/or one or more metal layers positioned between the metal substrate (1) and the resin film (2) and providing improved adhesion therebetween reading upon the claimed “connection layer configured to bind the metal layer and the non-metal layer” (see also Paragraphs 0014, 0016-0017, and 0028), thereby anticipating instant claims 1-2 and 16-18.
With respect to instant claims 3 and 19 (inadvertently recited as 3 and 18 in the prior office action), if the resin interface region is equated to the claimed “second connection layer located on a side close to the non-metal layer” with the metal layer and/or oxide film equated to the “first connection layer located on a side close to the metal layer”, then the claimed “binding force” limitations would be met by Tachibana when determined under some arbitrary conditions by some arbitrary method, and hence Tachibana anticipates instant claims 3 and 19.
With respect to instant claims 4 and 20 (inadvertently recited as 4 and 19 in the prior office action), given the preferred embodiments disclosed by Tachibana, particularly as depicted in the figures and that Tachibana provides the metal layers and the resin film by a wet method such that each “contact area proportion” is equal to the respective overlapping proportion, Tachibana anticipates instant claims 4 and 20 (Paragraphs 0034, 0038, Examples, Figures).
With respect to instant claims 8-10, it is first noted that the claimed “is formed by electroplating metal on the non-metal layer” limitation of instant claim 8 is a process limitation in the product claim, and given that Tachibana clearly discloses a laminated structure comprising layers reading upon each of the layers of instant claim 8, including a “solder layer” (e.g. inner or base metal layer), and an “electroplated coating” layer (e.g. outer metal layer), the Examiner takes the position that Tachibana anticipates the housing structure as recited in product claim 8 given that the claimed process limitation does not provide any material or structural differences to differentiate the claimed housing structure from the housing structure disclosed by Tachibana. With respect to instant claims 9-10, given that Tachibana clearly discloses that the metal layer(s) may be made of Ni, Cu, Sn, Ag, Pd, and Au, or an alloy or compound thereof, with a preferred (non-limited) embodiment comprising an inner layer or underlayer of Ni, Ni alloy, Au, or Ag, with an outer (electroplated) layer of Sn, (Paragraphs 0029-0034), the Examiner takes the position that Tachibana discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 9 as well as instant claim 10 given that the use of Sn for any of the metal plating layers would have been clearly envisaged based upon the disclosure of Tachibana.
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andoh (US2017/0129217A1) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein it is again noted that Andoh clearly discloses that the entire metal surface, i.e. all surfaces/sides including “a side of the metal and away from the non-metal layer”, may be subjected to a roughening and conversion treatment process and/or that the curable urethane or epoxy ink or paint may be applied to the entire surface metal surface such as by dip coating (Paragraph 0096) or immersion of the entire metal layer (Paragraph 0172) and not just to a “necessary surface” (Paragraph 0126) or to “one surface” of the shaped metal article (Paragraph 0186), and given that even a metal surface that is roughened and conversion treated but not coated with ink or paint would read upon the claimed “appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” as in instant claims 1 and 17, the Examiner maintains her position that Andoh anticipates the claimed invention for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and discussed further below with respect to the amened claims.
As discussed in the prior office action, Andoh discloses a multilayer composite body suitable as an exterior material and a protective material for various apparatuses, machines, and buildings in the fields of home appliances, mobile machines, and general, medical or industrial machinery (Abstract, Paragraphs 0002 and 0045, reading upon the claimed “housing structure” and claimed “electronic device” comprising “a circuit board” and “a housing structure located on an outer side of the circuit board”), wherein the multilayer composite body comprises a shaped metal layer and a molded layer of polypropylene-based resin composition bonded thereto via a thermosetting resin layer adjacent the metal layer and a modified polyolefin resin layer adjacent the polypropylene-based resin layer as shown in Fig. 5, and the composite body excels in a fixing strength between the shape metal article and the molded article of the polypropylene-based resin composition (Abstract, Fig. 5). Andoh discloses that a shaped or stampable metal article may be subjected to a chemical or physical roughening process to provide a roughened surface, upon which a first coating composed mainly of a curable urethane or epoxy resin ink or paint is applied and semi-cured to form a first or prime layer laminated on the shaped metal (e.g. a first connection layer as in instant claim 2, particularly a first glue layer as in instant claim 5, and also reading upon the claimed “first glue layer comprises epoxy resin glue” as in instant claim 7) that is then coated with a second coating of a modified polyolefin resin and heated to cure and fixedly attach the modified polyolefin resin coat material layer thereon (e.g. a second connection layer as in instant claim 2, particularly a second glue layer as in instant claim 5), followed by optional shaping/stamping and injection molding of the polypropylene-based resin composition onto the second coat material to form the multilayer composite body (Paragraphs 0029-0033 and 0052-0054). Andoh discloses that the second coat material laminated on an upper layer of the first coat material is formed by coating a solution of an adhesive composition including the modified polyolefin resin wherein the composition may comprise a resin mixture including one or two or more non-chlorinated modified polyolefin resins as well as a well-known resin having adhesivity such as a polyester resin, a polyurethane resin (a second glue layer that comprises “a same material” as in the urethane first coat as the first glue layer as in instant claim 6 and/or “a material of the second glue layer comprises polyurethane glue” as in instant claim 7), and an acrylic resin compounded with the modified polyolefin resin(s) (Paragraphs 0056-0058); and given that Andoh clearly discloses that the entire metal surface (i.e. all surfaces/sides including “a side of the metal and away from the non-metal layer”) may be subjected to a roughening and conversion treatment process and/or that the curable urethane or epoxy ink or paint may be applied to the entire surface metal surface such as by dip coating or immersion (Paragraphs 0049, 0096, 0126, and Examples), reading upon the broadly claimed “appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” as in instant claims 1 and 17, the Examiner maintains her position that Andoh anticipates the claimed “housing structure” of instant claims 1-2 and 5-7, and the claimed “electronic device” of instant claims 17-18, wherein the shaped metal layer is equated to the claimed metal layer, the conversion treatment layer provided on the entire roughened metal surface is equated to the claimed “appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” of amended claims 1 and 17, the polypropylene-based resin composition layer provided on one side of the conversion-treated shaped metal layer is equated to the claimed non-metal layer, and the first and second coating layers positioned between the metal layer and the polypropylene-based resin composition layer are equated to the claimed connection layer, particularly the claimed first and second connection layers as in instant claims 2 and 18 and claimed first and second glue layers as in instant claims 5-7.
With respect to instant claims 3 and 19, Andoh discloses that the two intermediate resin or “glue” layers of the invention overcome adhesions problems between metals and polypropylene resin which as a non-polar polyolefin has poor adhesion to metals (Background, Paragraphs 0010-0014), wherein the thermosetting first coat ensures adhesion to the metal surface and also bonds to the material which is to be laminated thereupon, namely the modified polyolefin resin as the second coat material which serves for bonding the polypropylene-based resin composition (Paragraph 0052) and as evidenced by the inventive and comparative examples disclosed by Andoh showing average adhesive strength values of different layer configuration, the Examiner takes the position that Andoh clearly discloses that “a binding force” between the urethane or epoxy resin as the first connection layer and the metal layer is greater than “a binding force” between the modified polyolefin resin as the second connection layer and the metal layer, while “a binding force” between the modified polyolefin and the polypropylene layer as the non-metal layer is greater than “a binding force” between the urethane or epoxy resin of the first connection layer and the polypropylene layer as the non-metal layer (Examples), particularly when measured under some arbitrary conditions utilizing some arbitrary method. Hence, Andoh anticipates instant claims 3 and 19.
With respect to instant claims 4 and 20, given that the layers disclosed by Andoh are adhered over the entire overlapping areas as evidenced by the examples and figures, Andoh anticipates instant claims 4 and 20 (Entire document, particularly Examples).
With respect to instant claim 16, Andoh discloses that the material of the shaped metal article is usually a general-purpose metal such as an aluminum alloy, a magnesium alloy, a titanium alloy, a copper alloy, a stainless steel, a general steel material, an aluminum-plated steel sheet, and a zinc-plated steel sheet (Paragraph 0048), thereby anticipating instant claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 as well as claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh, as applied above to claims 1-7 and 16-20, for generally the same reasons as discussed in the prior office action and further discussed below as applied to the amended claims. The teachings of Andoh are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner takes the position that the reference is anticipatory for the reasons discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference), particularly given the absence of any specific type of “appearance effect layer” and any specific conditions for determining the “binding force” as discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-7 and 16-20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Andoh given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to provide any desired “appearance effect layer” on an outer surface of the multilayer composite body or “housing structure” taught by Andoh based upon the intended end use, particularly given that Andoh clearly teaches that the metal material may be a painted metal material (Paragraphs 0103 and 0106, Examples) and/or an aluminum-plated or zinc-plated steel (Paragraph 0048) wherein the aluminum or zinc plating would also provide an appearance effect and thus would be an “appearance effect layer” resulting from plating a surface, or “surface processing”, of the steel base substrate. Further, given that Andoh clearly teaches that the multilayer composite body is suitable as an exterior material, protective material or cover material (e.g. “housing”) for various apparatuses and machines in the fields of home appliances, mobile machines, and various machinery, wherein said machines and home appliances may include a circuit board, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed “housing structure” of claims 1-7 and 16, and the claimed “electronic device” comprising a circuit board and a housing structure located on an outer side of the circuit board as in instant claims 17-20 would have been obvious over the teachings of Andoh given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claims 11-13, although Andoh does not specifically teach that the metal utilized in the multilayer composite body of the invention comprises a micro-nano porous layer formed after micro-nano pore etching processing is performed on the metal layer, Andoh does teach that it is known in the art to chemically etch a surface of a metal, such as an aluminum alloy surface treated with an aqueous hydrazine solution, to obtain a micro-nano porous uneven structure thereon for integration of the etched metal with an injection molded resin (Background), and given that Andoh clearly teaches that the metal substrate, such as an aluminum alloy substrate, is preferably subjected to chemical etching treatment or physical roughening treatment to roughen the surface of the metal and improve the fixing strength of the thermosetting resin layer, with working examples utilizing an etching step to provide a surface roughened on a micron order, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the metal article in the invention taught by Andoh to a known chemical etching step, such as one providing a micro-nano porous layer on the surface thereof, to further improve the fixing or bonding strength of the resin layer(s) to the surface of the etched metal as taught by Andoh, wherein said etched surface would read upon the claimed “first connection layer” and the resin coatings or “glue” layers would read upon the claimed “second connection layer” as in instant claim 11, as well as “a mixture of two types of resin glue” based upon the second coat composition, and given that the resin coatings are applied as liquids, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the resins to penetrate into the pores as is typical in the art thereby reading upon the claimed “surface pore filling layer” and “a material of the surface pore filling layer is the same as a material of the non-metal layer” based upon the modified polyolefin coating, particularly modified polypropylene (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0108, 0172, 0188, Examples). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claims 11-13 would have been obvious over the teachings of Andoh given that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
With respect to instant claims 14-15, although Andoh does not specifically limit the thicknesses of the metal layer, resin coating layers, and polypropylene layer such that they occupy the claimed percentage ranges of the total housing structure as instantly claimed, Andoh does appear to teach working examples wherein the metal layer and the polypropylene layer have thicknesses falling within the claimed ranges given the nominal thickness contribution of the resin coating layers as evident by the figures and examples. Further, given that it is well established in the art that thickness of a metal substrate and/or resin molded layer can be adjusted to provide the desired mechanical strength for a particular end use and/or that thickness of an adhesive or intermediate resin layer can be adjusted to provide desired adhesion, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 14-15 would have been obvious over the teachings of Andoh given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum thickness for each of the layers of the composite body taught by Andoh, wherein thicknesses as in the examples and/or relative thicknesses as depicted by the figures of Andoh would have been obvious to one skilled in the art and would read upon and/or suggest the claimed thickness percentages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot with respect to the prior art rejections as (re)applied above in light of the additional discussion directed to the amended claim limitations. In general, the Applicant argues that independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claim 17) has been amended to require “an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer, wherein the housing structure are laminated by the appearance effect layer, the metal layer, the connection layer, and the non-metal layer” and that such limitations are allegedly absent from the cited reference(s) (see page 8 of the response). More specifically, with respect to Naritomi, the Applicant summarizes a portion of Naritomi on page 9 of the response, and then argues in the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 that although the Office Action stated that Naritomi discloses an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on the metal layer, referring to pages 6-7 of the Office Action, “neither Office Action nor the cited sections of Naritomi [allegedly] disclose an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer, wherein the housing structure are laminated by the appearance effect layer, the metal layer, the connection layer, and the non-metal layer” (emphasis by Applicant), arguing that the underline limitation is allegedly completely absent from Naritomi. The Applicant then argues, “In fact, Naritomi discloses ‘samples obtained by a treatment process using anodizing and regarded as providing fine pores and the largest surface area’ (Paragraph 0101), ‘The PBT is fixed in such a manner as to fill the large and small pores.’ (Paragraph 0096). Therefore, on the contrary, Naritomi discloses a surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer adjacent to the non-metal layer” (emphasis by Applicant). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that although Naritomi does in fact provide surface processing on a side of the metal layer adjacent the non-metal layer to improve adhesion therebetween, Naritomi also clearly discloses that the integrated article, i.e., after the non-metal layer is bonded or fixed to the side or surface of the metal layer provided with the large and small pores noted by the Applicant, may be subjected to further processing such as anodizing and dyeing or painting to provide desired aesthetic properties to the aluminum alloy surface when used as an exterior surface of the integrated article or housing as clearly noted by the Examiner in the sentence bridging pages 6-7 of the prior office action, and as clearly discussed in Paragraph 0103 and specifically exemplified by Experimental Example 8 wherein as noted above, the integrated article of Experimental Example 7, i.e., after the non-metal (thermoplastic resin) layer is bonded or fixed to the side or surface of the metal layer that is etched and treated with a hydrazine solution, is further subjected to colored aluminum anodizing treatment by dipping the integrated article, sequentially, in (1) degreaser, (2) aqueous caustic soda solution, and (3) mixed acid liquid, with intermediate water rinsing after each of (1), (2), and (3), followed by anodizing, rinsing with running ion-exchange water, dipping in water having a dye dissolved therein to effect dyeing, rinsing with water, dipping in aqueous phosphoric acid to effect sealing, and then followed with a final rinsing with water, wherein Naritomi specifically discloses that the aluminum anodizing treatment of Experimental Example 8 was performed at a slightly reduced temperature to minimize the damage to the resin which, as noted above, is bonded or fixed to the side or surface of the metal layer that is etched and treated with hydrazine solution. Thus, the colored aluminum anodizing treatment of Experimental Example 8 is effected on a side of the aluminum or metal layer “away from the non-metal layer” and “after surface processing [i.e., degreasing, caustic soda treatment, and/or acid etching] is performed on a side of the metal layer away from the non-metal layer” as in the instantly claimed invention such that the anodized and dyed surface/layer reads upon the claimed “appearance effect layer” of the claimed invention, especially in light of the instant specification as filed which clearly recites that the appearance effect layer may be formed by performing an anodic oxidation, coloring micro-arc oxidation processing, or the like (see Paragraph 0075 of the specification as filed). Hence, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Naritomi are not persuasive.
With respect to the anticipation rejections over Sun, Tachibana, and Andoh, and the obviousness rejection over Andoh, the Applicant broadly argues that “Applicant has reviewed Sun, Tachibana, Andoh, and Andoh, and has not identified any portion that teaches or suggests the above claimed feature,” arguing that “[a]s such, Naritomi, Sun, Tachibana, Andoh, and Andoh, alone or in combination, [allegedly] fail to remedy the deficiencies as set forth above” (see paragraph bridging pages 10-11). The Applicant then relies upon these same reasons with respect to independent claim 17 and dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20. However, the Examiner does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive and specifically refers to the Applicant to the above cited portions of each reference as applied to the amended claims including the claimed feature of “an appearance effect layer that is formed after surface processing is performed on a side of the metal layer and away from the non-metal layer” argued by the Applicant.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 11/10/2025.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gwin (US2016/0268178A1) discloses a molded composite enclosure for an integrated circuit assembly, wherein the enclosure includes a lid portion comprising an interior portion (152a) such as composed of a polymer, an exterior portion (152b) such as composed of a metal, and in some embodiments, a primer material (152e) disposed therebetween to promote adhesion between the interior portion (152a) and the exterior portion (152b), and wherein the exterior portion (152b) may include multiple layers of metal.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787