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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "21" and "22" have both been used to designate the top closure plate in Figs. 1 and 6, respectively.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both the corrugated spring and a part of the central chamber [between “9” and “10”] in Fig. 1; and reference character “21” has been used to designate both the top closure plate in Fig. 1 and a part of the inner chamber in Fig. 2 [between “20” and “8”].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “14” and “11” in Fig. 1; “14” in Fig. 2; “206” in Fig. 4; “302” and “303” in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first and last sentences begin with the implied phrases “The present disclosure relates to” and “The disclosure furthermore relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0033, line 3, “a lower and upper housing 19” should read “a lower housing 16 and upper housing 19” to clarify the designation of the components.
In paragraph 0033, line 4, and paragraph 0043, line 1, “the upper and lower housing 16” should read “the upper housing 19 and lower housing 16” to clarify the designation of the components.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-17, the word “Claim” in the preamble should be lowercased “claim”.
In claim 9, line 9, “housing are medium-tightly” should read “housing
In claim 9, line 12, “such that the electrolyte” should read “such that as the electrolyte”.
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 5-6, 9-11 and 15 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 5 recites the limitation "the anodising container" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of an “anodising container” in the dependency of the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as dependent on claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrolyte outlet region" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “electrolyte outlet region” in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electrolyte/separating fluid mixture" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “electrolyte/separating fluid mixture” in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the entry face" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “entry face” in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a recess” is previously introduced in lines 8 and 15 of the claim. It is therefore unclear which of these recesses is being referred to later in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the profile" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a “profile” in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein by control of a compressed air mass flow, air pressure, electrolyte mass flow, a current and a voltage in the profile as a function of time" in lines 2-3. The wording of the limitation is an incomplete clause does not state what the result of the control as a function of time is. For examination purposes, based on paragraph 0022 of the instant application, this limitation has been interpreted to mean that the method further comprises control of the listed parameters as a function of time.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a “method” in the dependency of the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrolyte outlet region" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of an “electrolyte outlet region” in the claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frembgen (DE 10028675 A1, citations based on translation) in view of Wald et al. (DE 102008027094 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 1, Frembgen teaches a treatment system for a component (see e.g. Paragraph 0026, electrochemical treatment device for treating workpiece), comprising: an electrolyte source which generates an electrolyte flow from an electrolyte outlet opening along a face to be treated of the component (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyte supplied via supply line 14 through liquid outlets 13 to contact inner surface of cavity 10 of workpiece 8 to be treated; Paragraph 0028, line 3-6, and Paragraph 0029, lines 1-4), wherein a separating fluid source generates a separating fluid flow along a face not to be treated of the component (see e.g. Fig. 1, compressed air supplied via compressed air line 22 and flowing through bore 18 such that electrolyte is prevented from entering bore 18 which is not intended for treatment; Paragraph 0030, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0034, lines 4-6).
Frembgen does not explicitly teach the treatment being anodising or the component being a part of a motor vehicle brake, but does teach it the system being an electrochemical system in which the component to be treated is connected as an anode (see e.g. Paragraph 0029, lines 3-4). Frembgen further teaches the system having advantages over ones in which a section not intended for treatment are only blocked by seals (see e.g. Paragraph 0014 and Paragraph 0034, lines 4-6).
Wald teaches an anodizing system for a component of a vehicle braking system (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001 and 0018) wherein electrolyte is introduced into a chamber of the component to be anodized with the component acting as an anode (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, electrolyte introduced into chamber system to anodize chamber walls 18; Paragraph 0040-0041 and 0043), and temporary closures, i.e. seals, are provided to prevent entry of electrolyte into connected hollow areas of the component to be excluded from anodization (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 5, temporary closures 34/40 in hollow areas 20/33; Paragraphs 0036 and 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the treatment system of Frembgen to particularly be an anodising system for a component of a vehicle braking system as taught by Wald as a particular exemplary electrochemical treatment system in which the treated component acts as an anode where channels connected to a main channel are desired to be prevented from treatment which would benefit from the non-seal based system of Frembgen. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. Further MPEP § 2143(I)(D) states that “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
It should be noted however that the particulars of the treated component are not necessarily positively recited elements of the anodising system. MPEP § 2115 states “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims."”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Frembgen teaches the anodising system having a separating fluid feed, the separating fluid feed comprising an anodising container into which the component can be inserted and the separating fluid feed comprising the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, compressed air supplied via compressed air line 22 into pressure chamber 1, i.e. container, and flowing through opening 19 of workpiece 8 into bore 18; Paragraph 0030, lines 1-7).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, modified Frembgen teaches the anodising system comprising a separating fluid feed and the electrolyte outlet opening, the electrolyte outlet opening and the separating fluid feed having an overlap region (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, compressed air supplied via compressed air line 22 into pressure chamber 1, i.e. container, and flowing into bore 18, the supply of compressed air overlapping liquid outlets 13 at least in the interior 21 of chamber 1; Paragraphs 0029, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0030, lines 1-7).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Frembgen teaches the anodising system comprising an electrolyte/separating fluid sink (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, drain line 15 through which mixed electrolyte and compressed air flow out; Paragraph 0030, lines 7-9) and an anodising container connected to the separating fluid source, the separating fluid source generating a superatmospheric pressure (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, pressure chamber 1 connected to compressed air supply system, the compressed air pressurizing, i.e. generating a superatmospheric pressure in, chamber 1; Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Frembgen teaches the anodising container being configured to be separating fluid-tight (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, pressure chamber 1 sealed to be pressure-resistant, i.e. pressurized medium/separating fluid-tight, with O-ring seals 5/6; Paragraphs 0020 and 0027).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Frembgen teaches the electrolyte source having a plurality of electrolyte outlet openings (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, several liquid outlets 13; Paragraph 0028, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Frembgen as modified by Wald teaches a method of using the anodising system according to claim 1 for anodising a component of a motor vehicle brake (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0026, method for treating workpiece in electrochemical treatment device; see e.g. Wald Paragraphs 0001 and 0018, process for anodizing component of vehicle braking system), comprising an electrolyte source which generates an electrolyte flow from an electrolyte outlet opening along a face to be anodised of the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, electrolyte supplied via supply line 14 through liquid outlets 13 to contact inner surface of cavity 10 of workpiece 8 to be treated; Paragraph 0028, line 3-6, and Paragraph 0029, lines 1-4), wherein a separating fluid source generates a separating fluid flow along a face not to be anodised of the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, compressed air supplied via compressed air line 22 and flowing through bore 18 such that electrolyte is prevented from entering bore 18 which is not intended for treatment; Paragraph 0030, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0034, lines 4-6), the method comprising:
providing the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, workpiece 8 fixed to workpiece holder 7; Paragraph 0028, lines 1-2),
introducing a cathode into a recess of the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, electrode holder with cathode 12 lowered into cavity 10 of workpiece 8; Paragraph 0029, lines 1-2),
closing an upper and lower housing medium-tightly and providing a separating fluid region (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, cover part 4 and base plate 2 sealed to pressure cylinder 3 with O-ring seals 5/6 to form pressure-resistant, i.e. medium-tight, pressure chamber 1 to be filled with pressurized medium; Paragraphs 0020 and 0027),
contacting the cathode and the component with a current supply such that as the electrolyte emerges at electrolyte openings, the face being anodised of the component is wetted with electrolyte (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, with cathode 12 and workpiece 9 connected as anode, electrolyte exists outlets 13 and wets inner surface of cavity 10 to be treated, Paragraph 0029, lines 1-5; see e.g. Wald Figs. 3-5, voltage applied with electrode 42 as cathode and housing block 12 as anode and electrolyte introduced to contact chamber walls 18 of housing block 12 to be selectively anodized, Paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0043),
forming a separating fluid barrier by the separating fluid flowing over in a region between an overflow bore and a recess (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, compressed air flowing into bore 18 in direction opposite arrow 20 prevents entry of electrolyte from cavity 10 into bore 18, i.e. creating a separating fluid barrier; Paragraph 0030, lines 5-7),
and suctioning the electrolyte/separating fluid mixture on the entry face of the recess (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, mixture of electrolyte and compressed air fed through opening 17, i.e. an entry face, of cavity 10 to flow out via pump-connected drain line/suction line 15; Paragraph 0013, lines 12-13, Paragraph 0029, lines 5-7, and Paragraph 0030, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 10, Frembgen as modified by Wald teaches control of a compressed air mass flow, air pressure, electrolyte mass flow, a current and a voltage as a function of time (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0029, lines 1-2, Paragraph 0030, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0031, control of supply and pressure of compressed air and electrolyte during the time of electrochemical treatment; see e.g. Wald Paragraph 0045, control of process parameters such as amount of current, and thereby accompanying voltage, during the time of anodization).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frembgen in view of Wald, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Schaedel (U.S. Patent No. 4,152,221).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Frembgen teaches all the elements of the system of claims 1 and 12 as stated above. Modified Frembgen does not teach the electrolyte outlet opening having an opening edge profile which is profiled in such a way that the electrolyte outlet region is widened.
Schaedel teaches an anodizing apparatus (see e.g. Abstract) wherein electrolyte is delivered to a part to be anodized via spray nozzles, i.e. outlet openings, (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, nozzles 40 delivering electrolyte to the part 9 to be anodized; Col. 3, lines 21-26, and Col. 5, lines 22-28 and 40-44), wherein the nozzles may be formed with a widened outlet region to form a conical spray that produces an unbroken electrolyte envelope over the treated part (see e.g. Fig. 3A, nozzles 40’ with widened outlet part forming conical spray pattern; Col. 3, lines 50-55, and Col. 5, lines 45-51) and thereby enables unbroken, i.e. uniform, flow of anodizing current through the electrolyte to the treated part (see e.g. Col. 5, lines 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte outlet opening of modified Frembgen to have a profile with a widened outlet region as taught by Schaedel to form a conical spray that produces an unbroken electrolyte envelope over the treated component and thereby enables unbroken, i.e. uniform, flow of anodizing current through the electrolyte to the treated component.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frembgen in view of Wald, as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Gramm (U.S. 2004/0217012).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Frembgen teaches all the elements of the system of claims 1 and 14 as stated above. Modified Frembgen does not teach the number of electrolyte outlet openings increasing in the flow direction of the electrolyte flow path. Frembgen does however teach the electrolyte flowing in an axial direction of the surface to be treated (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, electrolyte exiting outlets 13 and flowing down along inner surface of cavity 10 to be treated and out in axial direction of arrow 16; Paragraph 0029, lines 1-6).
Gramm teaches a device for performing surface treatment, such as anodizing, of workpieces (see e.g. Abstract and Paragraphs 0063-0064), wherein a process fluid is delivered to a surface of the workpiece to be treated via several openings arranged in a longitudinal/axial flow direction of the process fluid, i.e. increasing in number in the flow direction (see e.g. Fig. 2, inlet openings 122 in axial direction of lance 141 parallel to flow direction 132 of process fluid in feed channel 124; Paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0083), thereby providing homogeneous feeding of the process fluid along the total axial extension of the treatment surface, and thereby facilitate homogenous treatment of the surface (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004, 0010 and 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Frembgen to have several of the electrolyte outlet openings arranged, i.e. increasing in number, in the flow direction of the electrolyte flow path as taught by Gramm to provide homogeneous feeding of the electrolyte in the axial flow direction of the treatment surface, and thereby facilitate homogenous treatment of the surface.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frembgen in view of Wald, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son (KR 101114887 B1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 11, Frembgen as modified by Wald teaches a method using the anodising system of claim 1 (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0026, method for treating workpiece in electrochemical treatment device; see e.g. Wald Paragraphs 0001 and 0018, process for anodizing component of vehicle braking system), wherein an electrolyte mixture is discharged from the recess of the component (see e.g. Frembgen Fig. 1, mixture of electrolyte and compressed air fed through opening 17 of cavity 10 to flow out drain line 15; Paragraph 0030, lines 7-9), and the electrolyte mixture is conveyed to a separating device (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0030, lines 9-10, air must be separated before electrolyte is fed back to inlet line).
Modified Frembgen does not teach the method being for separating metals dissolved during an eloxal method, wherein the mixture is an electrolyte/copper mixture, the separating device is supplied with electrical energy, and the copper contained in the electrolyte/copper mixture is filtered out. Frembgen does however teach metal material being removed from the inside of the component (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0002, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0029, lines 3-5), discharged electrolyte optionally being conveyed to a cleaning device before being returned to a feed line (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0029, lines 5-8), and components mixed with the electrolyte needing to be separated before the electrolyte is fed back to the system again (see e.g. Frembgen Paragraph 0030, lines 9-10, air must be separated before electrolyte is fed back to inlet line). Wald also teaches the component comprising aluminum (see e.g. Wald Paragraph 0012).
Son teaches a filtration device for removing metallic impurities such as dissolved copper generated during the anodizing process of a metal such as aluminum that can interfere with the surface treatment (see e.g. Paragraphs 0001, 0003 and 0007-0008), wherein electrolyte containing the dissolved copper is discharged from an electrolytic cell in which the anodization takes place and conveyed to the filtration device (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyte transferred from electrolytic cell 1 to filtration device 100 via pipe 102; Paragraphs 0029 and 0031), a voltage is supplied to electrodes of the filtration device to adsorbed the dissolved copper (see e.g. Fig. 2, anode member 120 and cathode member 122 for adsorbing copper; Paragraphs 0032 and 0040), and electrolyte with the dissolved copper filtered/removed is reintroduced into the electrolytic cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0031, lines 5-6, and Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Frembgen to comprise conveying a mixture of the electrolyte and a dissolved metal such as copper discharged from the component to a voltage-supplied filtering device, i.e. energized separating device, in which the copper may be removed/filtered out from the electrolyte as taught by Son as a suitable device for cleaning a discharged electrolyte mixture from an anodising process before reintroducing it to electrolyte supply that removes metallic impurities that may otherwise interfere with the anodising treatment process. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights