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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 October 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It does not appear that the Specification includes section headings.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The mentioning of the words “claim(ed)” should be avoided in the Specification as claims are only to be provided in the claims section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the Examiner-initialed IDS corresponding to the IDS filed on 27 October 2023, FPD No. 6 has been crossed-out as not having been considered because no copy of the cited document could be located in the filewrapper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed composite consists of first, second, and third substructure having claimed compositions that are limited by “consisting” compositions and that have a specified positional relationship. Therefore, it is unclear how there can be further “anchoring layer” that contains aluminum or aluminum alloy and third substructure material. How can the composite that is limited to first, second, and third substructure further have an additional layer, such as the specified anchoring layer that “directly connects” second and third substructures? It is unclear how the second substructure can be bonded to the third substructure if there is an intervening anchoring layer?
Regarding Claim 3, in the phrase “any cut surface” does this refer to all such cut surfaces or to only at least one? Does it require there be a cut surface, or not necessarily?
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “at most solid solutions including intermetallic phases of the aluminum alloy”. It is unclear what “most” modifies. It is unclear what it is being excluded by use of “most”. It is unclear whether there must be solid solutions or intermetallic phases that occur. Does the requirement mean that solid solutions including intermetallic phase can only occur in anchoring layer and not otherwise in second substructure, but that there need not necessarily be any in the anchoring layer? It is unclear whether this claim necessarily requires that the second substructure consist of aluminum alloy.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hatta GB 2083378 B in view of Watanabe USPA 2007/0284040. Hatta discloses (claims 6-8 and 10; examples): a steel-polymer composite structure having an aluminum polymer anchoring layer, wherein the composite structure consists of (1) a first sub-structure consisting solely of steel, (2) a second sub-structure which consists solely of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and which adjoins at least sub- regions of the first sub-structure and is applied thereon, and (3) a third sub-structure (resin) which consists solely of a polymer and which adjoins at least sub-regions of the second sub-structure and is applied thereon (Examples), wherein an anchoring layer directly connects the second and third sub-structures to one another [being zone of etched aluminum layer surface and applied resin therein], wherein the anchoring layer has anchoring structures with undercuts and/or enclosed islands [being the projections formed upon etching] made of aluminum or aluminum alloys which are formed by etching and formed so as to be flowed around and/or enclosed and/or filled by material of the third sub-structure which is still in a liquid state during manufacture (Examples: “projections” and “recesses"), and the islands and/or undercuts which are formed so as to be flowed around and/or enclosed and/or filled have a nested cuboidal shape and a minimum size of 200 nm (“microfine” projections) and sharp and/or rounded edges. Hatta does not explicitly disclose the shape of the projections. However, the feature "nested cuboidal shape,” which is understood to mean or encompass “multiply nested cuboidal shape”, in combination with "sharp and/or rounded edges", would be expected to be able to characterize or approximate any projection shape. In other words any projection shape can be deconstructed into a multiplicity of cuboidal shapes of varying sizes and having sharp and rounded edges so as to characterize or approximate that projection shape being deconstructed. Thus, it would be expected that the claimed shape is the same as or substantially the same as those of Hatta. The feature of minimum size of 200 nm is considered taught or suggested since the projections are characterized as “microfine projections” which suggests projections at a micron scale which would be expected to encompass or suggest projections of size greater than 200 nm. Thus, it would be expected that the claimed size is the same as or substantially the same as those of Hatta or otherwise rendered obvious by the size suggestion of being microfine. Hatta does not expressly require liquid state application of third layer, but teaches aqueous dispersion followed by heating (Example 1) and suggests melting (page 7, lines 14-20). Thus, to the extent that liquid production is not taught it would be expected that the resulting layer in Hatta is indistinguishable from liquid production since in the course of forming the layer in Hatta the resin must be melted which inherently leads to liquid production in the process of formation and there is no evidence of record that the resulting product being claimed necessarily precludes encompassing Hatta’s taught and suggested methods on a compositional and structural basis. Hatta teaches that the first substructure is a steel plate and that the aluminum layer can be 10 microns for a kitchen utensil and industrial uses, which implies the claimed thickness relationship is inherent since any functional kitchen utensil would necessarily have a thickness much greater than 10 microns, which implies that the steel plate thickness must be much greater than 10 microns, which would satisfy the claimed thickness relationship. Nevertheless, Hatta teaches the laminates have general kitchen and industrial usefulness (page 8, lines 2-4) and that the resins can be fluorocarbon resins, including (FEP) (page 1, lines 4-20). Watanabe teaches aluminum plated steel with FEP coatings have effective thickness for aluminum plated steel of 0.1 to 1.0 mm [100 to 1000 microns] (paragraphs 15 and 27), which, for a 10 microns Al layer, means that the steel plate thickness is greater than that of the Al layer [90 to 990 microns], wherein the composites have kitchen applications and other industrial applications (paragraphs 9 and 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use conventional Al plated steel sheet for kitchen and industrial uses to make composite in Hatta, such as the Al plated steel sheet in Watanabe useful for kitchen and industrial uses, which has an implied steel plate thickness being claimed.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, the projections being “microfine” implies that their size is on the order of microns, which encompasses ca. 1 micron to 10 microns and more. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare aluminum surface with any of these suggested projection sizes, including those in the claimed range since Hatta suggests they would be effective.
Regarding Claim 3, Hatta teaches that what forms are projections and recesses and so there is no expectation of cut surfaces, which does not appear to be a required structure. However, if it is a required structure, it would be expected that polymer would encompass islands of aluminum since polymer would be free to flow upon liquid production and thereby to encapsulate any aluminum constituting cut surface.
Regarding Claim 4, the aluminum layer in Hatta is an alloy and may or may not have intermetallic phases in the portion constituting the anchoring layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
7 March 2026