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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-20 withdrawn
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 amended
Claims 1-13 pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alms (PG Pub 2017/0165906 A1), in view of Gorokhovsky (US Pat. 9,482,105 B1), and in further view of Parr (US Pat. 4,997,674).
Consider Claim 1, Alms teaches the process of forming an intermediate substrate by depositing a thermoplastic layer (as thermoplastic composite part) on the substrate surface, then the process of cold spray (cold gas spray) directly onto the thermoplastic composite part a metal layer (abstract), forming a metallized composite part.
Alms does not teach the temperature of gas stream temperature that is used for the cold spray.
However, Gorokhovsky is in the prior art of cold spray a metal layer onto a substrate (abstract), teaches the cold spraying a metal/nickel layer onto a substrate at a temperature between 0-500℃ (Col. 19, lines 58-65).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Alms with Gorokhovsky to process a cold spray a metal layer onto thermoplastic composite part at the above temperature, therefore, preventing the thermal softening and ablation, to provide a wear resistant coating that protect against corrosion and erosion (abstract).
The combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky) does not teach the process of molding/bending the metallized composite part.
However, Parr is in the prior art of forming metal layer on a substrate (abstract), where the substrate is thermoplastic include SAN material (Col. 2, lines 51-60), teaches the process of spraying a metal/copper onto a SAN (thermoplastic) substrate, then the molding between chromed steel plates (Col. 20, lines 23-33). Where Parr does not teach the molding process that result in delamination of the sprayed metal layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Alms (with Gorokhovsky) with Parr to mold the metallized composite part (thermoplastic substrate having a cold sprayed metal layer), to provide with EMI shielding (abstract).
Consider Claim 2, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the metal layer is made from aluminum (Gorokhovsky, Col. 11, lines 8-11).
Consider Claims 3-4, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the thermoplastic include plurality of fibers (Alms, [0013]) such as carbon fiber, metallic fiber (Alms, [0011]).
Consider Claim 5, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the metallize composite part has an EMI property (Parr, abstract).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches metal layer thickness of 20 micron/0.787 mils (Gorokhovsky, Col. 3, lines 58-62).
Consider Claims 11-12, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the spray coating of multilayers of metal layers (Gorokhovsky, Col. 3, lines 58-62), including the cold spray of Aluminium particles (Gorokhovsky, Col. 11, lines 8-11) at gas stream temperature 0-500 ℃ (Gorokhovsky, Col. 19, lines 58-65).
Consider Claim 13, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the use of insulating layer (Alms, [0017]).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alms (PG Pub 2017/0165906 A1), in view of Gorokhovsky (US Pat. 9,482,105 B1), and in further view of Parr (US Pat. 4,997,674), and in further view of Fox (PG Pub 2007/0175573 A1), and in further view of Johnson (US Pat. 5,246,538).
Consider Claims 6-8, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the previously claimed in claim 1, above.
The combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teach the heating of the metal layer.
However, Fox is in the prior art of forming compressing molding a multi-stack article (abstract), where the outer layer (74) are metal fitting (304/308/310) with metal such as Al ([0072]-[0073], Fig. 4 and Figs. 19-20) are placed around the thermoplastic (claim 1), teaches the compressing molding process include the pre-heating pre-forming in zone (80) and later in pressing step in heating zone (108) where the compressing molding step occurs [0048], [0050].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) with Fox to pre-anneal the metallized composite part, to sufficiently to allow deformation of the metal layer onto the thermoplastic shape [0048], and the anneal the metallized layer, to allow the free flowing of the thermoplastic part around the metal layer [0050].
The combined art of Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr and Fox) does not teach the annealing temperature.
However, Johnson is in the art of molding process for laminating plastic resin onto a foil (Col. 2, lines 37-39), where the plastic resin in thermoplastic (Col. 8, lines 50-52), and the foil is metal foil (Col. 2, lines 20-25) as a metallized part, teaches the mold pressing/bonding of the metallized part is processed at temperature from 0-375ºC (Col. 5, lines 5-8) with duration from 1 min to 48 hour (Col. 5, lines 14-17). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr and Fox) with Johnson anneal the metallized parts between the claimed temperature and the claimed duration, to bond the metallized component altogether by melting and without decomposing the thermoplastic part (Col. 5, lines 2-5).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alms (PG Pub 2017/0165906 A1), in view of Gorokhovsky (US Pat. 9,482,105 B1), and in further view of Parr (US Pat. 4,997,674), and in further view of Fuller (PG Pub 2004/0058064 A1).
Consider Claim 9, the combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teaches the previously claimed in claim 1, above.
The combined Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) teach the heating the metal particles from 315-400℃.
However, Fuller is in the art of thermal spray coating with particles (abstract), teaches the process of forming a metal layer with thermal spraying coating metal particles [0027], where substrate include plastic [0028], where the annealing temperature of the particles ranges from 300-3000℃ [0025]. Therefore, increasing the ductility of the metal layer.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Alms (with Gorokhovsky and Parr) with Fuller to thermal spray the metal particles (of Alms), to provide with an improved bonding between the metal particles with the surface and to allow a build-up of metal layer [0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights