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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determining a coating performance attributes”, which uses both singular and plural terms. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “evaluating the coated substrate using colorimetric analysis”, “quantifying the colorimetric analysis” and “determining [[a]] coating performance attributes, corrosion resistance and bond strength, based on the colorimetric analysis”. Although colorimetric analysis is mentioned here, there is no details regarding what parameters are to be evaluated by colorimetric analysis and how these parameters are to be utilized in the claimed invention. Additionally, there is no description regarding what parameters are to be quantified in the quantifying step and how to quantify them. Furthermore, it is unclear that the three terms “coating attributes, corrosion resistance and bond strength” are all to be determined or they are intended to be provided in the alternative. Paragraphs [0025,0036-0037] of the instant specification appears to list these separately in the alternative, whereas other instances, see [0006, 0040-0041] appear to recite them as connected. The term “coating attributes” does not include any description of what they are. It is unclear if the claimed “coating attributes” refers to properties such as color, thickness, adhesion, composition or process conditions such as duration, application protocol or other parameters. The term “based on” in the determining step is also unclear because it does not provide any context or parameters by which one of ordinary skill in the art would determine any of the recited coating performance attributes. It is unclear if “based on” indicates a direct correlation of a certain parameter or data to a particular property, or if further interpretation is to be provided and utilized “based on” some set of original data or parameter. The term “corrosion resistance” is a relative term, where no parameters or scale is provided such that the term “resistance” may be ascertained. The metes and bounds of the term “resistance” are unclear, as to whether this is to be interpreted to provide complete avoidance of corrosion, if only minor corrosion is acceptable, or some amount in between. It is unclear if the claimed method is intended to somehow measure corrosion that actually takes place, or if this is intended to measure a period of time over which no corrosion takes place, or some other parameter(s).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the coating " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the use of an L*a*b* color scale " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the instant claim do not set forth in what capacity this color scale is to be utilized, how it relates to the claimed step of “determining the coating performance attributes”, nor any parameters by which one skilled in the art is to utilize the color scale within the claimed invention. Therefore, the instant claim 5 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the coating " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “measuring a surface of the primer coted substrate with a spectrometer” and “evaluating the coated substrate using colorimetric analysis”. The instant claim does not recite what parameters are being measured and how they are utilized in the claimed invention or if they are related to the evaluating step. Additionally, the instant claim also does not recite what parameters are to be evaluated by colorimetric analysis and how these parameters are to be utilized in the claimed invention. Therefore, the scope of instantly claimed measuring and evaluating steps are vague and indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “quantifying the colorimetric analysis” without providing any description of what parameters to be quantified and how these parameters are utilized in the claimed invention. Therefore, the scope of the claimed quantifying step is vague and indefinite. Additionally, it is unclear that the three terms “coating attributes, corrosion resistance and bond strength” in the determining step are all to be determined or they are intended to be provided in the alternative. Paragraphs [0025,0036-0037] of the instant specification appears to list these separately in the alternative, whereas other instances, see [0006, 0040-0041] appear to recite them as connected. The term “coating attributes” does not include any description of what they are. It is unclear if the claimed “coating attributes” refers to properties such as color, thickness, adhesion, composition or process conditions such as duration, application protocol or other parameters. The term “based on” in the determining step is also unclear because it does not provide any context or parameters by which one of ordinary skill in the art would determine any of the recited coating performance attributes. It is unclear if “based on” indicates a direct correlation of a certain parameter or data to a particular property, or if further interpretation is to be provided and utilized “based on” some set of original data or parameter. The term “corrosion resistance” is a relative term, where no parameters or scale is provided such that the term “resistance” may be ascertained. The metes and bounds of the term “resistance” are unclear, as to whether this is to be interpreted to provide complete avoidance of corrosion, if only minor corrosion is acceptable, or some amount in between. It is unclear if the claimed method is intended to somehow measure corrosion that actually takes place, or if this is intended to measure a period of time over which no corrosion takes place, or some other parameter(s).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the overcoat " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the use of an L*a*b* color scale " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the instant claim do not set forth in what capacity this color scale is to be utilized, how it relates to the claimed step of “determining the coating performance attributes”, nor any parameters by which one skilled in the art is to utilize the color scale within the claimed invention. Therefore, the instant claim 20 is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, 6-11 and 14-18 are also rejected since they depend on vague and indefinite independent claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. US 2018/0298497(Yasuda).
Yasuda teaches a method for coating an Al/Al alloy substrate[0011], comprising forming a chemical conversion coating on a surface of Al/Al alloy, followed by a further coating step with an epoxy resin containing organic film[0042-0043]. Yasuda further teaches that the treated Al/Al alloy is subjected to salt spray test(i.e. exposure to salt and moisture)[0061], and the coating was evaluated based on L*a*b* values (i.e. colorimetric analysis)[0058].
Regarding claims 1-6, 8 and 12, the epoxy resin containing organic film as taught by Yasuda reads on the claimed film coated onto a substrate. The conversion coating treatment reads the treating the substrate prior to coating the substrate. The epoxy containing film also reads on the claimed primer comprising an epoxy. Although Yasuda does not explicitly teach the claimed determining coating performance attributes, corrosion resistance and bond strength based on the colorimetric analysis. Yasudo does teach L*a*b* values can be measured to evaluate the coating[0058].
Note, since the scope of claimed determining step as recited in claim 1 has several outstanding issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, the examiner is interpreting the claimed determining step based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, which includes determining at least one coating performance attribute, such as appearance, color, thickness, adhesion, composition or process conditions such as duration, application protocol or other parameters associated with the coating. Based on this interpretation, the examiner concludes that the gold color appearance as taught by Yasuda reads on the claimed coating performance attribute determined based on the L*a*b* values from the colorimetric analysis[0017]. Yasudo also teaches that the gold color coating film has excellent corrosion resistance[0018].
Regard claim 9, Yasuda further teaches the epoxy containing coating is 0.1-30µm(0.004-1.18mil)[0043], which overlaps the claimed coating thickness of 0.1-0.5mil. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed coating thickness from the coating thickness of Yasuda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Yasuda teaches the same desirable resin coating in its coating thickness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2019/0032237(Kim).
The teachings of Yasuda are discussed in section 7 above. However, Yasuda does not explicitly teach that the aluminum alloy substrate was anodized prior to epoxy coating.
Kim teaches a method for treating an Al alloy substrate(abstract), comprising
Anodizing the Al alloy substrate(abstract);
Forming thin film comprising epoxy resin and heat treating the thin film[0097];
Measuring the surface of the coating with a spectrometer[0075]; and
Evaluating the coated substrate using L*a*b* values[0075];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the anodization step as taught by Kim into the process of Yasuda in order to form a metal texture as taught by Kim[0008].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, and further in view of JPH 10-508903(JPH903).
The teachings of Yasuda are discussed in section 7 above. However, Yasuda does not explicitly teach that the epoxy-containing primer additionally contains hexavalent Cr and/or a dye.
JPH903 teaches an epoxy primer in the treatment of an Al alloy is colored with a chromate corrosion inhibitor(page 5, under “Detailed Description of the Invention”).
Regarding claims 10-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the chromate as taught by JPH903 into the epoxy coating of Yasuda in order improve corrosion resistance of the epoxy coating and to impart color to the epoxy coating as taught by JPH903.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2019/0032237(Kim).
Kim teaches a method for treating an Al alloy substrate(abstract), comprising
Anodizing the Al alloy substrate(abstract);
Forming thin film comprising epoxy resin and heat treating the thin film[0097];
Measuring the surface of the coating with a spectrometer[0075]; and
Evaluating the coated substrate using L*a*b* values[0075];
Regarding claims 13, 17 and 20, the formation of an epoxy resin thin film and the subsequent heat treating reads on the claimed applying a primer and curing the primer.
Regarding claim 14, Kim further teaches applying an additional anodizing treatment, which reads on the claimed overcoat onto the primer [0100], or alternatively, an additional a metal and inert gas deposition step[0142], which also reads on the claimed overcoat onto the primer.
Regarding claim 15, the epoxy containing thin film as taught by Kim is applied to another surface as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches that the treated Al alloy metal has excellent corrosion resistance[0005, 0045], which implies the claimed exposure to a corrosive environment.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches that the epoxy containing thin film may have a thickness of 1-30µm(i.e. 0.04-1.18mil)[0099], which encompasses the claimed primer thickness. Therefore, a prima face case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed coating thickness from the coating thickness of Kim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Kim teaches the same property in its coating thickness.
Regarding claim 20, although Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed overcoat comprising an epoxy-functional paint or resin, it would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have re-applied an additional layer of the paint depending on the coating thickness requirement or application requirement, which would have produced a overcoat comprising an epoxy-functional paint/resin as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OOTA et al. US 2016/0211178 teaches a method for making high strength Al alloy wherein an Al alloy sheet is anodized and rinsed at 95C to close the pores of the anodic coating[0099], and undergoes a color evaluation by measuring the L*a*b* values[0100]. Appropriate L*a*b* value ranges are then determined to achieve desired coating color.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733