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, see Pgs. 1-7, filed 11/24/205, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 and 103 based on Curran and separately on Chan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made on the art of record in view of Chang et al. (US 20120103819 A1), herein Chang, which is used to teach the amended limitation of a zirconium based seed layer.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al. (US 20180263130 A1), herein Curran, in view of Chang et al. (US 20120103819 A1), herein Chang.
Claims 1-2 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 1-2 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having an aluminum enclosure with an underlayer and coating layer comprising zirconium. The combination of references suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 1, Curran teaches an enclosure/housing for an electronic device, comprising an aluminum 6000 series body/substrate, a protective intermediate coating (504) and a hard layer (506) [Abstract, claims 1, 0002, 0022, 0034, 0038, claim 1, Figs. 1, 4A-B, 5D]. The hard coating is deposited by a PVD process [0038].
Curran does not teach that a coating layer comprising zirconium is present on intermediate layer. Curran teaches the intermediate layer is an unsealed anodic layer [0040].
Chang teaches an aluminum article includes a substrate made of aluminum or aluminum alloy, a porous aluminum oxide layer formed on the substrate, and a transparent vacuum coated layer formed on the aluminum oxide layer [Abstract, claim 1]. The vacuum coated layer comprises zirconium [0012]. The vacuum coated layer is transparent and has a proper thickness, the vacuum coated layer can present an interference color under light irradiation [0013]. The vacuum coating layer is formed by PVD [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the zirconium layer of Chang to the housing of Curran. One would have been motivated to do so in order to o enhance the visual appeal of the coating. Additionally, as Chang teaches the combination of a zirconium layer to an anodized aluminum layer that one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 2-3, Curran teaches the intermediate layer is an unsealed anodic layer [0040]. The Instant Spec, paragraph 0032 teaches that and unsealed anodic oxide underlayer prevent crazing or corrosion.
In regards to claim 5, Curran further teaches the intermediate layer is about 8 to 30 microns [0024, 0031]. This overlaps the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al. (US 20180263130 A1), herein Curran, in view of in view of Chang et al. (US 20120103819 A1), herein Chang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curran et al. (US 20170051425 A1), herein Curran’17.
In regards to claim 6, Curran further teaches the enclosure comprises a 6000 or 7000 series aluminum alloy but does not specify it is 6013 series or 7075 series [0034].
Curran differs from claim 6 by teaching a 6000 or 7000 series aluminum alloy, such that it cannot be said that the 6013 or 7075 species are anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the alloys in the series taught by Curran, including 6013 and 7075. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Alternatively, Curran’17 teaches an aluminum alloy, for example 7000 series alloy, enclosure for an electronic device [Abstract, 0007, claim 12].
Curran’17 expressly teaches the alloy is a 7075 aluminum alloy [0058, 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the 7075 alloy of Curran’17 as the 7000 series aluminum alloy of Curran. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one know aluminum alloy for another that one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al. (US 20180263130 A1), herein Curran, in view of in view of Chang et al. (US 20120103819 A1), herein Chang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aiello et al. (US 20180070472 A1), herein Aiello.
In regards to claim 7, Curran further teaches the enclosure comprises aluminum but does not specify it is die-cast aluminum [0034].
Aiello teaches enclosure/housing for electronic devices [Abstract, 0052].
Aiello teaches the enclosure comprises die-cast aluminum [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the die-cast aluminum of Aiello as the aluminum of Curran. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one know aluminum for another that one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (TW201022051A), herein Chen, in view of Curran et al. (US 20180263130 A1), herein Curran, Tang (CN 111663128 A), Chang et al. (US 20120103819 A1), herein Chang.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translations of (CN111663128A) and (TW201022051A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translations.
Claims 1 and 4 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 1 and 4 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having an aluminum enclosure with an underlayer and zirconium coating layer. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claims 1 and 4, Chen teaches surface coatings for the surface of electronic products such as mobile phones, computer and game consoles [lines
12-21]. The substrate of the casing is metal [51-58, 80-84]. The underlayer/adhesion layer is a metallic chromium layer [Lines 86-90]. An anti-corrosion layer is formed on top to the adhesion layer by a PVD process [lines 120-127].
Chen does not teach that the metal of the casing is a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy.
It is noted that the claim is framed under the transitional phrase comprising and thus additional layers may be present, additionally there is no limitation that prevents additional layers between the underlayer and the PVD layer in the claim.
Curran teaches an enclosure/housing for an electronic device, comprising an aluminum 6000 series or 7000 series body/substrate, a protective intermediate coating (504) and a hard layer (506) [Abstract, claims 1, 0002, 0022, 0034, 0038, claim 1, Figs. 1, 4A-B, 5D].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the 6000 series or 7000 series aluminums alloy of Curran as the metal substrate of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so as Curran teaches that 6000 series or 7000 series aluminums alloys are known for use as enclosures for electronic devices and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Chen does not teach that the chromium layer comprises CrSn.
Tang teaches a chromium alloy plating layer [lines 12-19].
The alloy elements include tin and thus is considered CrSn [lines 18-19].
Tang teaches the alloy layer has good corrosion resistance, is bright and has no color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used CrSn alloy of Tang as the chromium layer of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so as Tang teaches the alloy layer has good corrosion resistance, is bright and has no color.
Chen does not teach that a coating layer comprising zirconium is present on the CrSn layer.
Chang teaches an aluminum article includes a substrate made of aluminum or aluminum alloy, a porous aluminum oxide layer formed on the substrate, and a transparent vacuum coated layer formed on the aluminum oxide layer [Abstract, claim 1]. The vacuum coated layer comprises zirconium [0012]. The vacuum coated layer is transparent and has a proper thickness, the vacuum coated layer can present an interference color under light irradiation [0013]. The vacuum coating layer is formed by PVD [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the zirconium layer of Chang to the housing of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance the visual appeal of the coating,
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784