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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
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(s) 10-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori (EP 0 693 261) in view of Schmidt (US 6,368,718).
Regarding claim 10, Shiratori discloses an apparatus comprising
a body made of a metal material (30/31);
at least one anti-corrosion layer (32) on the outer surface of the metal element; and
at least one paint layer (34) covering the entirety of the at least one anti-corrosion layer.
Shiratori fails to disclose a roughened outer surface subjected to a preliminary surface roughening process over the entire metal element.
Schmidt teaches a device wherein surface roughening is applied prior to application of an anti-corrosion layer (Column 4, lines 18-26)
From this teaching of Schmidt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include surface roughening across an entire surface of the material of Shiratori. Roughening a surface enhances adhesion of a coating layer. Applying the surface roughening and thus the anti-corrosion layer across the entire element would enhance durability and corrosion resistance of the entire element.
Regarding claim 11, Shiratori further discloses wherein the metal element includes copper (31) and zinc (30).
Regarding claim 12, Shiratori further discloses the wherein the at least one anti-corrosion layer is a plate layer including zinc (Column 3, lines 6-9), but fails to disclose the plate layer includes copper and tin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Shiratori further discloses wherein at least one coloring backing layer (33) is formed between the at least one anti-corrosion layer and the at least one paint layer.
Regarding claim 14, Shiratori further discloses the at least one coloring backing layer is a plate layer (Fig. 3 as shown) but fails to disclose tin and cobalt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tin and cobalt since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, Shiratori further discloses wherein the at least one paint layer is black (Column 6, line 18-19).
Regarding claim 16, the combination device of Shiratori and Schmidt further discloses wherein a plurality of recesses are formed on the roughened outer surface by the preliminary surface roughening process, and wherein the at least one anti-corrosion layer, the at least one coloring backing layer, and the at least one paint layer are formed inside the plurality of recesses (the mechanical roughening introduced by Schmidt would inherently produce recesses at least of a microscopic scale).
Regarding claim 19, the combination device of Shiratori and Schmidt further disclose wherein the at least one anti-corrosion layer covers the entirety of the roughened outer surface of the metal element (the roughening process introduced by Schmidt would be provided on the entirety of the surfaces with applied paint/anti-corrosives).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. However, to further clarify the issue the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shiratori as a primary reference as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677