DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-8 and 11-13 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voiron et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0185155).
Regarding claim 6, Voiron et al. teaches a metal molded article (as shown in fig. 1-5B) having a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface to each other, the metal molded article comprising: a first side surface area (section with projections 4, as shown in fig. 3A) located at a first height of the side surface of the metal molded article (1); and a second side surface area (section 2R without projections 4, as shown in fig. 3A) located at a second height of the side surface of the metal molded article (1) (note that both sections have a height), wherein the first side surface area comprises a plurality of fine trenches (3) formed side by side in a long groove shape (as shown in fig. 5B) extending from the first surface to the second surface (as shown in fig. 3A), wherein the plurality of fine trenches (3) are formed by pores of an anodic aluminum oxide film (as disclosed in para. 0011 and 0034), and wherein the plurality of fine trenches are open recesses at an outer surface of the first side surface area (as shown in fig. 3A and 5A).
Regarding claim 7, Voiron et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6, in addition, Voiron et al. teaches wherein at least one end of the metal molded article (1) comprises a protruding tip portion (10, on top of 4, as shown in fig. 2) having a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of a central portion of a body portion (2b, as shown in fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 8, Voiron et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7, in addition, Voiron et al. teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (10, on top of 4, as shown in fig. 2) is made of a material (metal) different from a material (anodic aluminum oxide) of the body portion.
Regarding claim 11, Voiron et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7, in addition, Voiron et al. teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (10, on top of 4, as shown in fig. 2) is provided at a corner of the end of the metal molded article (1) (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Voiron et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7, in addition, Voiron et al. teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (10, on top of 4, as shown in fig. 2) is provided at a center of the end of the metal molded article (1) (as shown in fig. 2).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voiron et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0185155) in view of Kister (US PGPUB 2012/0286816).
Regarding claim 13, Voiron et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Voiron et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion is made of a material having a higher hardness than a material of the body portion. However, Kister et al. teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (4006) is made of a material having a higher hardness (harder material) than a material of the body portion (4002) (as disclosed in para. 0156).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion made of a material having a higher hardness than a material of the body portion as taught by Kister et al. with the invention of Voiron et al. in order to prolong the durability and effectiveness of the metal molded article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858