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 the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending wherein claims 1-2 and 5-10 are amended.
Status of the Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6406971 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6406971, and further in view of Ferrasse (US 2018/0155812) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 4,060,411).
In regard to claim 1, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses aluminum alloys that would be hot worked such as by extrusion (columns 5-6).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Goto et al. (‘411)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Zn
Present
3.2 – 8
3.2 – 8
Zr
0.005 – 0.03
0.01 – 1.2
0.01 – 0.03
Mg
Present
1.2 – 4.5
1.2 – 4.5
Cu
Present
0.1 – 1.5
0.1 – 1.5
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium and copper in the alloys disclosed by Goto et al. (‘411) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, and copper from the amounts disclosed by Goto et al. (‘411) because Goto et al. (‘411) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “[Cu] ≥ 0.14[Zn] – 0.782” in claim 1, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses alloys with amounts of copper such as 1.5 weight percent copper and 4 weight percent zinc and the right side would be -0.222 and the left side would be 1.5 and would therefore meet the limitation.
In regard to claim 2, Goto et al. (‘411) suggests ratios of Zn:Mg of 2:1 such as 5.6 weight percent zinc with 2.8 weight percent magnesium (Examples).
With respect to the recitation “an intermetallic compound including Zn2Mg, wherein the intermetallic compound has a diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less” in claim 3, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses a substantially similar composition and method of making (extrusion). Therefore, the claimed intermetallic compound and diameter would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material comprises crystal grains having an average particle diameter of 100 micrometers (µm) to 300 µm, and wherein a potential difference at an interface between at least two adjacent crystal grains is in a range of 30 millivolts (mV) to 100 mV” in claim 4, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses a substantially similar composition and method of making (extrusion). Therefore, the claimed average particle diameter and the potential difference at the interface between at least two adjacent crystal grains would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 5, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses 3.2 to 8 weight percent zinc and 1.2 to 4.5 weight percent magnesium, which encompasses the ranges of the instant invention (column 6).
In regard to claim 6, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses 0.1 to 1.5 weight percent copper, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 6). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 7, [Cu]/[Zn} in Goto et al. (‘411) would range from 0.0125 to 0.46875, which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 8, [Cu]/{Zn] in Goto et al. (‘411) would range from 0.0125 to 0.46875 and 0.14 – 0.782/[Zn] would range from -0.104375 to 0.04225, which would read on the instant invention. For instance, an alloy with 1 weight percent copper and 3.5 weight percent zinc would have a left side value of 0.285 and the right side value would be -0.083, which would satisfy the limitation.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material has a yield strength of 450 megapascals (MPa) or greater” in claim 11, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses substantially similar compositions made by extruding (columns 5-6). Therefore, the claims property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material has a surface hardness of 150 Vickers hardness (Hv) or greater” in claim 12, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses substantially similar compositions made by extruding (columns 5-6). Therefore, the claims property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 4,060,411) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ferrasse (US 2018/0155812).
In regard to claim 14, Goto et al. (‘411) discloses extruded aluminum alloys as set forth above, but Goto et al. (‘411) does not specify forming an electronic device housing.
Ferrasse (‘812) discloses forming phone cases from extruded aluminum alloys because such alloys would have high strength to minimize elastic or plastic deflection, dents and other types of damage [0003-0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the fling of the instant invention, to use the extruded aluminum alloys, as disclosed by Goto et al. (‘411), to form phone cases, as disclosed by Ferrasse (‘812), in order to minimize elastic or plastic deflection, dents and other types of damage, as disclosed by Ferrasse (‘812) [0003-0004].
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable et al. (US 10,597,762).
In regard to claim 1, Gable (‘762) discloses aluminum alloys that would be hot worked such as by extrusion (columns 1 and 16).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Gable (‘762)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Zn
Present
4 – 10
4 – 10
Zr
0.005 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.03
Mg
Present
0.5 – 2
0.5 – 2
Cu
Present
0 – 0.5
greater than 0 – 0.5
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium and copper in the alloys disclosed by Gable (‘762) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, and copper from the amounts disclosed by Gable (‘762) because Gable (‘762) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “[Cu] ≥ 0.14[Zn] – 0.782” in claim 1, Gable (‘762) discloses alloys with amounts of copper such as 0.5 weight percent copper and 4 weight percent zinc and the right side would be -0.222 and the left side would be 0.5 and would therefore meet the limitation.
In regard to claim 2, Gable (‘762) suggests ratios of Zn:Mg of 4:1 to 7:1, but the minimum of such ratios would be 4 weight percent zinc with 2 weight percent magnesium, which would be 2:1 (column 1).
In regard to claim 3, Gable (‘762) teaches the presence of the MgZn2 intermetallic (column 3).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the intermetallic compound has a diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less” in claim 3, Gable (‘762) discloses a substantially similar composition and method of making (extrusion). Therefore, the claimed intermetallic compound and diameter would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material comprises crystal grains having an average particle diameter of 100 micrometers (µm) to 300 µm, and wherein a potential difference at an interface between at least two adjacent crystal grains is in a range of 30 millivolts (mV) to 100 mV” in claim 4, Gable (‘762) discloses a substantially similar composition and method of making (extrusion). Therefore, the claimed average particle diameter and the potential difference at the interface between at least two adjacent crystal grains would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 5, Gable (‘762) discloses 4 to 10 weight percent zinc, which encompasses the range of the instant invention and 0.5 to 2 weight percent magnesium, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 1). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 6, Gable (‘762) discloses 0 to 0.5 weight percent copper, which encompasses the range of the instant invention (column 1).
In regard to claim 7, Gable (‘762) discloses amounts of copper and zinc that would have a ratio of from 0 to 0.05, which would overlap the range of the instant invention (column 1). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 8, [Cu]/{Zn] in Gable (‘762) would range from 0 to 0.05 and 0.14 – 0.782/[Zn] would range from -0.0555 to 0.0618, which would read on the instant invention. For instance, an alloy with 0.5 weight percent copper and 4 weight percent zinc would have a left side value of 0.125 and the right side value would be -0.0555, which would satisfy the limitation.
In regard to claim 9, Gable (‘762) discloses aluminum alloys that would be hot worked such as by extrusion (columns 1 and 6-8).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Gable (‘762)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Zn
Present
4 – 10
4 – 10
Zr
0.005 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.03
Mg
Present
0.5 – 2
0.5 – 2
Cu
Present
0 – 0.5
Present to 0.5
Mn
0.1 – 0.3
0 – 0.1
0.1
Si
0.01 – 0.1
0 – 0.2
0.01 – 0.1
Fe
0.01 – 0.15
0 – 0.30
0.01 – 0.15
Ti
0.005 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.03
Cr
0.0001 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.0001 – 0.03
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, copper, manganese, silicon, iron, titanium and chromium in the alloys disclosed by Gable (‘762) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, copper, manganese, silicon, iron, titanium and chromium from the amounts disclosed by Gable (‘762)) because Gable (‘762) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 10, Gable (‘762) discloses aluminum alloys that would be hot worked such as by extrusion (columns 1 and 6-8).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Gable (‘762)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Zn
5.85 – 8
4 – 10
4 – 10
Zr
0.005 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.03
Mg
2 – 2.9
0.5 – 2
2
Cu
0.03 – 0.5
0 – 0.5
0.03 – 0.5
Mn
0.1 – 0.3
0 – 0.1
0.1
Si
0.01 – 0.1
0 – 0.2
0.01 – 0.1
Fe
0.01 – 0.15
0 – 0.30
0.01 – 0.15
Ti
0.005 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.005 – 0.03
Cr
0.0001 – 0.03
0 – 0.1
0.0001 – 0.03
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, copper, manganese, silicon, iron, titanium and chromium in the alloys disclosed by Gable (‘762) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of zinc, zirconium, magnesium, copper, manganese, silicon, iron, titanium and chromium from the amounts disclosed by Gable (‘762) because Gable (‘762) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material has a yield strength of 450 megapascals (MPa) or greater” in claim 11, Gable (‘762) discloses substantially similar compositions made by extruding (columns 1 and 6-8). Therefore, the claims property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy extruded material has a surface hardness of 150 Vickers hardness (Hv) or greater” in claim 12, Gable (‘762) discloses substantially similar compositions made by extruding (columns 1 and 6-8). Therefore, the claims property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 13, Gable (‘762) discloses anodizing by electrolytic passivation the extruded aluminum alloys (column 15). Therefore, a surface gloss of 300 gloss units (GU) or greater measured according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2813 would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 14, Gable (‘762) discloses using the aluminum alloys to form enclosures for cell phones and tablets (column 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights