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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-7, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears “Zirconium nitride” should be “zirconium nitride”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin.
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. 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, transitional layer and a color layer. 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 the 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, such that 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 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.
Curran does not teach that a transition layer is disposed between the seed layer and a color layer.
Yin teaches a PVD vacuum plating process for an aluminum alloy surface [Abstract]. The PVD coating comprising a bottom layer, an intermediate layer, a transition layer, a color layer and a protective layer [Abstract, 0009, claim 1]. The transition layer comprises a nitride [0005].
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 transition and color layers of Yin to the coating of Curran. One would have been motivated to do so as Yin teaches these layers are conventionally known coating layers for aluminum substrates and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the coat layer would add appeal to the article and the transition layer would add adhesion and hardness to the coating layer.
In regards to claim 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 and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin, 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) and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin, 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.
Claim 21 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 and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20210071290 A1), herein Park and Krella (Resistance of PVD Coatings to Erosive and Wear Processes: A Review).
In regards to claim 21, modified Curran through Yin teaches the transition layer is a multilayer coating comprising nitrides but does not expressly teach that it comprises TiAlZrN and ZrN.
Yin teaches PVD nitride coatings having excellent wear resistance and toughness [Abstract]. The multilayer coating comprise a TiAlZrN layer [0012, Table 2 example 14].
Krella teaches PVD coatings for erosive and wear processes [Title, Abstract]. Krella teaches the multilayer coatings combine layers of nitrides such as TiN/ZrN [Abstract, Pgs. 12, 27].
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 TiAlZrN and ZrN layers of Park and Krella as the nitride layers of Yin for the coating layer of Curran. One would have been motivated to do so based on the wear resistance and toughness afforded by the layers. Further, it would have been the simple substitution of one known nitride layer for another to obtain predictable results. 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.
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 and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin.
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,
Chen does not teach that a transition layer is disposed between the seed layer and a color layer.
Yin teaches a PVD vacuum plating process for an aluminum alloy surface [Abstract]. The PVD coating comprising a bottom layer, an intermediate layer, a transition layer, a color layer and a protective layer [Abstract, 0009, claim 1]. The transition layer comprises a nitride [0005].
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 transition and color layers of Yin to the coating of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so as Yin teaches these layers are conventionally known coating layers for aluminum substrates and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the coat layer would add appeal to the article and the transition layer would add adhesion and hardness to the coating layer.
Claim 21 is 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 and Yin et al. (US 20200240003 A1), herein Yin, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park et al. (US 20210071290 A1), herein Park and Krella (Resistance of PVD Coatings to Erosive and Wear Processes: A Review).
In regards to claim 21, modified Curran through Yin teaches the transition layer is a multilayer coating comprising nitrides but does not expressly teach that it comprises TiAlZrN and ZrN.
Yin teaches PVD nitride coatings having excellent wear resistance and toughness [Abstract]. The multilayer coating comprise a TiAlZrN layer [0012, Table 2 example 14].
Krella teaches PVD coatings for erosive and wear processes [Title, Abstract]. Krella teaches the multilayer coatings combine layers of nitrides such as TiN/ZrN [Abstract, Pgs. 12, 27].
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 TiAlZrN and ZrN layers of Park and Krella as the nitride layers of Yin for the coating layer of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so based on the wear resistance and toughness afforded by the layers. Further, it would have been the simple substitution of one known nitride layer for another to obtain predictable results. 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights