Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/478,578

GLASS ENAMELING OF ALUMINUM METAL MATRIX COMPOSITES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
WEYDEMEYER, ALICIA JANE
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
II-VI Delaware, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
178 granted / 386 resolved
-18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
443
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 386 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/22/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023, 10/13/2024, and 04/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. 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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda et al. (US 2015/0028333) and further in view of Barbarossa et al. (US 2018/0309469). Regarding claims 14-16, Fujieda discloses a metal matrix composite comprising a glass coating film (0001). The glass coating (instant enameled coating) on the surface of the MMC material (Fig. 1) and comprising a transition metal oxide, such as vanadium pentoxide (instant pigment/colored dye material), and glass (0022). Fujieda teaches that the metal matrix composite substrate includes an aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy (0024), however does not expressly teach the substrate containing a metal and a ceramic or organic compound. Barbarossa, in the analogous field of metal matrix composite materials for housings of electronic devices (0002), teaches a metal matrix composite comprising a metal and a ceramic (0023), such as Al-SiC (0025). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the substrate of Fujieda to include a ceramic such as SiC, as taught by Barbarossa, to tailor the properties of the substrate, including for higher strength and lower density (0023). Please note, the recitation in claim 1, that the structure is a housing for an electronic consumer device is merely and intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Fujieda discloses a coated metal matrix composite as presently claimed, it is clear that the metal matrix composite of Fujieda would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. as a housing for an electronic consumer device, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP. Regarding claim 17, Fujieda teaches controlling the thermal expansion of the glass coating to be brought close to that of the substrate (0025). As applicant’s specification teaches that a “substantially similar” CTE is less than 5%, but can be less than 1%, 10%, 15%, 20%, or any other amount to achieve a desired result, Fujieda teaches the coating having a CTE substantially similar to the first CTE as claimed. Regarding claim 18, Fujieda teaches the metal matrix composite substrate includes an aluminum alloy (0024). Regarding claim 19, Barbarossa teaches Al-SiC (0025). Regarding claim 20, Barbarossa teaches young’s modulus due to addition of SiC of 125 GPa or more (0025), overlapping the claimed value of greater than 125 GPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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. /ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600827
METHOD FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL OR QUASI-TWO-DIMENSIONAL POLYMER FILM, THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL OR QUASI-TWO-DIMENSIONAL POLYMER FILM AND THE USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584249
Tearable Cloth
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575041
DISPLAY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570571
GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553189
ABSORBENT STRUCTURES WITH HIGH STRENGTH AND LOW MD STRETCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+26.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 386 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month