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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 May 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 15, 22, 25, 28, and 31-46 are pending in the application, claim 28 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-14, 16-21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 have been cancelled. Claims 31-46 have been added.
Amendments to the claims 15 and 28, filed on 8 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 8 May 2028, regarding the double patenting rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 8 May 2028, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 8 May 2028, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection have been made in further view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as disclosed below. In that some of the applicants' arguments still pertain to rejections made of record herein, they are addressed below in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicants argues that at Albertson, Wollard, and Van Eck address unrelated objectives with respect to the claimed invention, that the combinations of the references are based upon impermissible hindsight, and there is no articulated reasoning or rational underpinning that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Albertson, Wollard, and Van Eck are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the field of endeavor of the applicants' invention pertains to "systems and methods for facilitating the correct use of fasteners" (see [0002] of the filed specification). Albertson discloses fasteners having colored coatings indicating a specific property of the fastener to ensure easy visible confirmation that the correct type has been used ([Col. 2: li. 37-65] of Albertson), Wollard discloses a bolt having a coating that is used to confirm its installation ([0004] of Wollard), and Van Eck discloses a staple enclosed in a resin for electrical insulation or improved drivability and holding power ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck); all of which pertain to fasteners and their installation or installability, which is the same as the applicants' and therefore are analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be easily seen by exciting the fluorescent dye and/or fluorescent pigment with a corresponding light source, thereby making indication of installation of the fastener visible in various lighting conditions ([0034] of Wollard). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the resin of Van Eck with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, from the stand-point of having a staple (fastener) enclosed in resin material for electrical insulation ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck). As such, there is clear motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references to teach the claimed invention.
Applicants argues that at Albertson, Wollard, and Matthews address unrelated objectives with respect to the claimed invention, that the combinations of the references are based upon impermissible hindsight, and there is no articulated reasoning or rational underpinning that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Albertson, Wollard, and Matthews are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the field of endeavor of the applicants' invention pertains to "systems and methods for facilitating the correct use of fasteners" (see [0002] of the filed specification). Albertson discloses fasteners having colored coatings indicating a specific property of the fastener to ensure easy visible confirmation that the correct type has been used ([Col. 2: li. 37-65] of Albertson), Wollard discloses a bolt having a coating that is used to confirm its installation ([0004] of Wollard), and Matthews discloses a staple enclosed in a colored resin adapted to be driven into or through material to be fastened ([Col. 1: li. 10-19] of Matthews); all of which pertain to fasteners and their installation or installability, which is the same as the applicants' and therefore are analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be easily seen by exciting the fluorescent dye and/or fluorescent pigment with a corresponding light source, thereby making indication of installation of the fastener visible in various lighting conditions ([0034] of Wollard). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fastener of Matthews with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, from the stand-point of having fasteners adapted to be driven into of through material to be fastened produced in a variety of colors, and which have advantages in holding power, easier penetration, freedom from corrosion, and increased columnar strength ([Co. 1: li. 10-19] of Matthews). As such, there is clear motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references to teach the claimed invention.
Therefore, in light of the applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the combination of Albertson in view of Wollard and Van Eck and the combination of Albertson in view of Wollard and Matthews are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25, 45 and 46 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.
With Regards to Claim 25: Claim 25 recites the limitation --the coating applied to at least the portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties-- in lines 1 to 3. Claim 15, from which claim 25 depends, recites --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant-- in lines 6 to 7. Furthermore, the instant specification as filed recites --[t]he colorant is a component within the coating that imparts color to the fastener. The colorant can include pigments, dyes, and other substances capable of imparting color to the coating-- in paragraph [0062]. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that the limitation is attempting to redefine the coating as only including at least one dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties; (2) that said "at least one of dyes and pigments" are different from the "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the coating further includes at least one of dyes and pigments"); or (3) that said "at least one of dyes and pigments" was intended to further define said "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the colorant includes at least one of dyes and pigments"). In view of the disclosure, it is the decision of the examiner, for the purposes of examination, to treat the limitation to read as either the second or the third interpretation.
With Regards to Claim 45: Claim 45 recites the limitation --the coating includes at least one pigment selected from-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 15, from which claim 45 depends recites --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant-- in lines 6 to 7. Furthermore, the instant specification as filed recites --[t]he colorant is a component within the coating that imparts color to the fastener. The colorant can include pigments, dyes, and other substances capable of imparting color to the coating-- in paragraph [0062]. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that the limitation is attempting to redefine the coating as only including at least one pigment; (2) that said "at least one pigment" is different from the "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the coating further includes at least one pigment"); or (3) that said "at least one pigment" was intended to further define said "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the colorant colorant
With Regards to Claim 46: Claim 46 recites the limitation --the coating includes at least one dye selected from-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 15, from which claim 46 depends recites --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant-- in lines 6 to 7. Furthermore, the instant specification as filed recites --[t]he colorant is a component within the coating that imparts color to the fastener. The colorant can include pigments, dyes, and other substances capable of imparting color to the coating-- in paragraph [0062]. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that the limitation is attempting to redefine the coating as only including at least one dye; (2) that said "at least one dye" is different from the "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the coating further includes at least one dye"); or (3) that said "at least one dye" was intended to further define said "colorant" of claim 15 (i.e., the limitation intended to recite "the colorant colorant
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15, 22, 31-37, 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Van Eck (US 4,129,059 A), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3").
Regarding Claim 15: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connectors (e.g., metal straps) and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --an assembled structure, comprising a plurality of metallic components; a plurality of groups of fasteners securing the plurality of components together within the assembled structure, each group comprising a plurality of identical fasteners, each fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)--. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--.
Eibon discloses a multilayer composite coating on a substrate, the multilayer composite coating comprising an opaque coating layer of a coating composition, the coating composition comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, wherein the pigment composition comprises: colored inorganic pigment particles; metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles (e.g., aluminum flakes); and interference pigment particles ([0001], [0006], [0057]-[0059], [0092], [0105], and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the substrate can be various metallic substrates, such as ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals ([0012] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson, respectively, in order to have --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a ferrous or non-ferrous metallic substrate having a coating with the appearance of a tri-coat coating system in fewer than three coating layers and a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001] and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties on a ferrous or non-ferrous metal substrate ([0003] and [0012] of Eibon), As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Eibon as the coating of Albertson to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners (i.e., ferrous metal fasteners from non-ferrous metal fasteners). Furthermore, since it is well-known for fasteners (e.g., nails, screw, and bolts) to be of a metal material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the ferrous metal and non-ferrous metal of Eibon as the material of the fastener disclosed by Albertson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Albertson in view of Eibon fails to disclose --the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--.
Van Eck discloses single-element staples in which at least a portion of the staple is enclosed in resin material for electrical insulation or improved driveability and holding power ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the resin of Van Eck with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon in order to have --the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the resin of Van Eck with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon, from the stand-point of having a staple (fastener) enclosed in resin material for electrical insulation ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, as claimed.)
Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T), where T is 3.0--.
Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1]) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2]). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 22: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of fasteners have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color, wherein CT is 40--.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 31: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the fasteners comprise at least one of bolts, screws, nuts, or rivets ([Col. 6: li. 25-30] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 32: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a difference in at least one of head style, drive type, tread profile, length or body diameter ([Col. 2: li. 47-55], [Col. 6: li. 25-30 and 47-50] and [Col. 7: li. 63-65] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 33: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a different in material composition between groups of fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 47-55] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 34: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the material composition comprises at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or copper ([0012] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 35: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the binder comprises an epoxy-based binder ([0061], [0063], [0064], and [0091] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 36: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the binder comprises at least one of an acrylic binder, a polyurethane binder, or a polyester binder ([0058]-[0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 37: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the coating electrically isolates the fastener body form the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 32-39 of Van Eck). (In the instant case, since the coating electrically isolates the metallic fastener body from the metallic component, it would also reduce galvanic corrosion.)
Regarding Claim 39: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite that --that the plurality of aluminum flakes impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating--. However, Eibon does disclose that the pigment imparts color and/or other opacity and/or other visual effects to the composition ([0057] of Eibon). In that Eibon provides the same aluminum flakes as the applicants, they are considered by the examiner to impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the coating comprises a continuous layer covering the fastener body (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses a portion of the fastener (e.g., head) is completely covered by the coating (i.e., a continuous coating layer on the head).)
Regarding Claim 41: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the binder further comprises at least one additive selected from a cross-linking agent ([0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 42: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the coating is configured to reduce exposure of the fastener body to chemical exposure (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, because the coating entirely covers at least an exposed portion of the fastener, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, that that coated portion would have reduced chemical exposure to the fastener due to the presence of the coating.)
Regarding Claim 43: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the components can be of a metal (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson) and that the fastener body can be of a ferrous metal or non-ferrous metal ([0012] of Eibon), which is considered to meet the claimed limitation of --the metallic components comprise dissimilar metals from the metallic fastener body--. (In the instant case, because the metals of the fastener body and the components are generic, there would exist some metal of the component that is different from the fastener body, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as the component or fastener body. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Regarding Claim 44: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the coating provides a barrier between the fastener body and the plurality of metallic components to mitigate galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, which would mitigate galvanic corrosion as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 45: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the coating includes at least one pigments selected from titanium dioxide or chromium oxides ([0100]-[0104] of Eibon).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Van Eck (US 4,129,059 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 38: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of aluminum flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck in order to have --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). (In the instant case, Millar discloses that the oriented [light] reflective aluminum flakes are aligned parallel to a surface of the substrate and concentrated below a surface of the coating, ([Col. 1: li. 44-49] of Millar). As such, the concentrated layer of reflective aluminum flakes would constitute a barrier layer with respect to light.)
Claims 25 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Van Eck (US 4,129,059 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (WO 2009/096492 A1).
Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 25: Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck fails to disclose that --the coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties--.
Mikami discloses a flake body composed of a metal oxide, an organic acid, and at least one kind of fluorescent dye ([Pg. 2: li. 31-36], [Pg. 3: li. 3-5 and 12-17], and [Pg. 5: li. 20-25] of Mikami).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck in order to --the coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Van Eck, from the stand-point of having a flake body containing fluorescent dye with good color developability, and that upon excitation by absorbing ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light, emits ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light ([Pg. 5: li. 20-21] and [Pg. 6: li. 9-10] of Mikami). (In the instant case, because Eibon discloses a coating comprising metal flake pigment particles and interference pigment particles, it would have been obvious to incorporate or combine the flake body of Mikami so as to have fluorescent capable particles.)
Regarding Claim 46: Albertson in view of Eibon, Van Eck, and Mikami discloses that the coating includes at least one dye selected from azo dyes (e.g., fluorescent dyes of azo compounds) ([Pg. 5: li. 22-25] of Mikami).
Claims 15, 22, 31-37, 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Matthews (US 3,076,373 A), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 4 ("Polypropylene") (referred to herein as "NPL-4").
Regarding Claim 15: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connectors (e.g., metal straps) and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --an assembled structure, comprising a plurality of metallic components; a plurality of groups of fasteners securing the plurality of components together within the assembled structure, each group comprising a plurality of identical fasteners, each fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)--. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--.
Eibon discloses a multilayer composite coating on a substrate, the multilayer composite coating comprising an opaque coating layer of a coating composition, the coating composition comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, wherein the pigment composition comprises: colored inorganic pigment particles; metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles (e.g., aluminum flakes); and interference pigment particles ([0001], [0006], [0057]-[0059], [0092], [0105], and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the substrate can be various metallic substrates, such as ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals ([0012] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson, respectively, in order to have --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a ferrous or non-ferrous metallic substrate having a coating with the appearance of a tri-coat coating system in fewer than three coating layers and a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001] and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties on a ferrous or non-ferrous metal substrate ([0003] and [0012] of Eibon), As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Eibon as the coating of Albertson to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners (i.e., ferrous metal fasteners from non-ferrous metal fasteners). Furthermore, since it is well-known for fasteners (e.g., nails, screw, and bolts) to be of a metal material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the ferrous metal and non-ferrous metal of Eibon as the material of the fastener disclosed by Albertson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Albertson in view of Eibon fails to disclose --the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--.
Matthews discloses a fastener (e.g., staples, nails, and the like) adapted to be driven into or through material to be fastened, the fastener (staple) comprising a core member and a plastic body, wherein the plastic body is a thermoplastic with cold flow properties (e.g., nylon and polypropylene), and the body of the plastic material can completely cover the cover member ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews).
Matthews does not explicitly recite that the thermoplastic material is electrically insulating. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that the thermoplastic material can be electrically insulating. NPL-4 discloses that polypropylene can be used as an alternative to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as insulation for electrical cables ([Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). Therefore, as evidenced by NPL-4, the polypropylene thermoplastic resin disclosed by Matthews is electrically insulating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fastener of Matthews with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon in order to have --the binder be electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fastener of Matthews with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon, from the stand-point of having fasteners adapted to be driven into of through material to be fastened produced in a variety of colors, and which have advantages in holding power, easier penetration, freedom from corrosion, and increased columnar strength ([Co. 1: li. 10-19] of Matthews). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, as claimed.)
Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T), where T is 3.0--.
Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1]) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2]). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 22: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of fasteners have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color, wherein CT is 40--.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 31: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the fasteners comprise at least one of bolts, screws, nuts, or rivets ([Col. 6: li. 25-30] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 32: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a difference in at least one of head style, drive type, tread profile, length or body diameter ([Col. 2: li. 47-55], [Col. 6: li. 25-30 and 47-50] and [Col. 7: li. 63-65] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 33: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a different in material composition between groups of fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 47-55] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 34: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the material composition comprises at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or copper ([0012] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 35: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the binder comprises an epoxy-based binder ([0061], [0063], [0064], and [0091] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 36: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the binder comprises at least one of an acrylic binder, a polyurethane binder, or a polyester binder ([0058]-[0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 37: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the coating electrically isolates the fastener body form the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews; [Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). (In the instant case, since the coating of Matthews is of a material that electrically isolates the metallic fastener body from the metallic component, it would also reduce galvanic corrosion.)
Regarding Claim 39: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite that --that the plurality of aluminum flakes impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating--. However, Eibon does disclose that the pigment imparts color and/or other opacity and/or other visual effects to the composition ([0057] of Eibon). In that Eibon provides the same aluminum flakes as the applicants, they are considered by the examiner to impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the coating comprises a continuous layer covering the fastener body (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses a portion of the fastener (e.g., head) is completely covered by the coating (i.e., a continuous coating layer on the head).)
Regarding Claim 41: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the binder further comprises at least one additive selected from a cross-linking agent ([0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 42: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the coating is configured to reduce exposure of the fastener body to chemical exposure (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, because the coating entirely covers at least an exposed portion of the fastener, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, that that coated portion would have reduced chemical exposure to the fastener due to the presence of the coating.)
Regarding Claim 43: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the components can be of a metal (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson) and that the fastener body can be of a ferrous metal or non-ferrous metal ([0012] of Eibon), which is considered to meet the claimed limitation of --the metallic components comprise dissimilar metals from the metallic fastener body--. (In the instant case, because the metals of the fastener body and the components are generic, there would exist some metal of the component that is different from the fastener body, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as the component or fastener body. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Regarding Claim 44: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the coating provides a barrier between the fastener body and the plurality of metallic components to mitigate galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews; [Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, which would mitigate galvanic corrosion as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 45: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the coating includes at least one pigments selected from titanium dioxide or chromium oxides ([0100]-[0104] of Eibon).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Matthews (US 3,076,373 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 38: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of aluminum flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews in order to have --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). (In the instant case, Millar discloses that the oriented [light] reflective aluminum flakes are aligned parallel to a surface of the substrate and concentrated below a surface of the coating, ([Col. 1: li. 44-49] of Millar). As such, the concentrated layer of reflective aluminum flakes would constitute a barrier layer with respect to light.)
Claims 25 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) and Matthews (US 3,076,373 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (WO 2009/096492 A1).
Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 25: Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews fails to disclose that --the coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties--.
Mikami discloses a flake body composed of a metal oxide, an organic acid, and at least one kind of fluorescent dye ([Pg. 2: li. 31-36], [Pg. 3: li. 3-5 and 12-17], and [Pg. 5: li. 20-25] of Mikami).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews in order to --the coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews, from the stand-point of having a flake body containing fluorescent dye with good color developability, and that upon excitation by absorbing ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light, emits ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light ([Pg. 5: li. 20-21] and [Pg. 6: li. 9-10] of Mikami). (In the instant case, because Eibon discloses a coating comprising metal flake pigment particles and interference pigment particles, it would have been obvious to incorporate or combine the flake body of Mikami so as to have fluorescent capable particles.)
Regarding Claim 46: Albertson in view of Eibon, Matthews, and Mikami discloses that the coating includes at least one dye selected from azo dyes (e.g., fluorescent dyes of azo compounds) ([Pg. 5: li. 22-25] of Mikami).
Claims 15, 22, 25, 31-37, 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Van Eck (US 4,129,059 A), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3").
Regarding Claim 15: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connectors (e.g., metal straps) and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --an assembled structure, comprising a plurality of metallic components; a plurality of groups of fasteners securing the plurality of components together within the assembled structure, each group comprising a plurality of identical fasteners, each fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)--. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose that --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--.
Wollard discloses a multi-piece fastener system, wherein the multi-piece fastener (ref. #100) comprises a fastening collar (ref. #102) and a pin (ref. #120), wherein a coating (ref. #114) is formed on the outer collar surface (ref. #116B) of the fastening collar, the coating comprising a film-forming resin (binder), a metal pigment (i.e., one or more metals and/or metal alloys), and can comprise various other components and/or additives (i.e., one or both of a fluorescent dye and a fluorescent pigment) (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], [0020]-[0021], [0027]-[0037] of Wollard). Wollard further discloses that the multi-piece fastening system can comprise at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, a composite material, and other suitable material ([0041] of Wollard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson in order to have --the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be easily seen by exciting the fluorescent dye and/or fluorescent pigment with a corresponding light source, thereby making indication of installation of the fastener visible in various lighting conditions ([0034] of Wollard). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a fluorescent color, and be of a marking material that fades over time ([Col. 2: li. 61 to Col. 3: li. 2]), Wollard discloses that the color marking comprises a fluorescent pigment and/or dye that can fluoresce and that the colored coating can be temporary (i.e., that the coating is removed during installation) ([0034], [0051], and [0054] of Wollard). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Wollard as the coating of Albertson. Furthermore, since it is well-known for fasteners (e.g., nails, screw, and bolts) to be of a metal material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the metal or metal alloy of Wollard as the material of the fastener disclosed by Albertson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Albertson in view of Wollard fails to disclose --the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--.
Van Eck discloses single-element staples in which at least a portion of the staple is enclosed in resin material for electrical insulation or improved driveability and holding power ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the resin of Van Eck with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard in order to have --the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the resin of Van Eck with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, from the stand-point of having a staple (fastener) enclosed in resin material for electrical insulation ([Col: li. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, as claimed.)
Albertson in view of Wollard and Van Eck further failed to disclose --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--.
Eibon discloses a multilayer composite coating on a substrate, the multilayer composite coating comprising an opaque coating layer of a coating composition, the coating composition comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, wherein the pigment composition comprises: colored inorganic pigment particles; metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles (e.g., aluminum flakes); and interference pigment particles ([0001], [0006], [0057]-[0059], [0092], [0105], and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the substrate can be various metallic substrates, such as ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals ([0012] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Van Eck, respectively, in order to have --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Van Eck, from the stand-point of having a coating with the appearance of a tri-coat coating system in fewer than three coating layers and a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001] and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties ([0003] and [0012] of Eibon), As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Van Eck to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners.)
Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T), where T is 3.0--.
Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 22: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of fasteners have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color, wherein CT is 40--.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 25: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon teaches that the coating applied to at least the portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties ([0034] of Wollard).
Regarding Claim 31: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the fasteners comprise at least one of bolts, screws, nuts, or rivets ([Col. 6: li. 25-30] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 32: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a difference in at least one of head style, drive type, tread profile, length or body diameter ([Col. 2: li. 47-55], [Col. 6: li. 25-30 and 47-50] and [Col. 7: li. 63-65] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 33: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a different in material composition between groups of fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 47-55] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 34: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the material composition comprises at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or copper ([0012] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 35: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises an epoxy-based binder ([0061], [0063], [0064], and [0091] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 36: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises at least one of an acrylic binder, a polyurethane binder, or a polyester binder ([0058]-[0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 37: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the coating electrically isolates the fastener body form the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 32-39 of Van Eck). (In the instant case, since the coating electrically isolates the metallic fastener body from the metallic component, it would also reduce galvanic corrosion.)
Regarding Claim 39: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite that --that the plurality of aluminum flakes impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating--. However, Eibon does disclose that the pigment imparts color and/or other opacity and/or other visual effects to the composition ([0057] of Eibon). In that Eibon provides the same aluminum flakes as the applicants, they are considered by the examiner to impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the coating comprises a continuous layer covering the fastener body (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses a portion of the fastener (e.g., head) is completely covered by the coating (i.e., a continuous coating layer on the head).)
Regarding Claim 41: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the binder further comprises at least one additive selected from a cross-linking agent ([0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 42: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the coating is configured to reduce exposure of the fastener body to chemical exposure (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, because the coating entirely covers at least an exposed portion of the fastener, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, that that coated portion would have reduced chemical exposure to the fastener due to the presence of the coating.)
Regarding Claim 43: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the plurality of metallic components (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson; [0043] of Wollard) can comprise dissimilar metals from the metallic fastener body ([0041] of Wollard; [0012] of Eibon). (In the instant case, the structure (ref. #344) of Wollard can be considered equivalent to one of the metallic components.)
Regarding Claim 44: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the coating provides a barrier between the fastener body and the plurality of metallic components to mitigate galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 32-39] of Van Eck). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, which would mitigate galvanic corrosion as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 45: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the coating includes at least one pigments selected from titanium dioxide or chromium oxides ([0100]-[0104] of Eibon).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Van Eck (US 4,129,059 A), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 38: Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of aluminum flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon in order to have --the plurality of aluminum flakes be oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Van Eck, and Eibon, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). (In the instant case, Millar discloses that the oriented [light] reflective aluminum flakes are aligned parallel to a surface of the substrate and concentrated below a surface of the coating, ([Col. 1: li. 44-49] of Millar). As such, the concentrated layer of reflective aluminum flakes would constitute a barrier layer with respect to light.)
Claims 15, 22, 25, 31-37, 39, 40, and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Matthews (US 3,076,373 A), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 4 ("Polypropylene") (referred to herein as "NPL-4").
Regarding Claim 15: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connectors (e.g., metal straps) and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --an assembled structure, comprising a plurality of components; a plurality of groups of fasteners securing the plurality of metal components together within the assembled structure, each group comprising a plurality of identical fasteners, each fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)--. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose that --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--.
Wollard discloses a multi-piece fastener system, wherein the muti-piece fastener (ref. #100) comprises a fastening collar (ref. #102) and a pin (ref. #120), wherein a coating (ref. #114) is formed on the outer collar surface (ref. #116B) of the fastening collar, the coating comprising a film-forming resin (binder), a metal pigment (i.e., one or more metals and/or metal alloys), and can comprise various other components and/or additives (i.e., one or both of a fluorescent dye and a fluorescent pigment) (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], [0020]-[0021], [0027]-[0037] of Wollard). Wollard further discloses that the multi-piece fastening system can comprise at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, a composite material, and other suitable material ([0041] of Wollard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson in order to have --the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be easily seen by exciting the fluorescent dye and/or fluorescent pigment with a corresponding light source, thereby making indication of installation of the fastener visible in various lighting conditions ([0034] of Wollard). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a fluorescent color, and be of a marking material that fades over time ([Col. 2: li. 61 to Col. 3: li. 2]), Wollard discloses that the color marking comprises a fluorescent pigment and/or dye that can fluoresce and that the colored coating can be temporary (i.e., that the coating is removed during installation) ([0034], [0051], and [0054] of Wollard). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Wollard as the coating of Albertson. Furthermore, since it is well-known for fasteners (e.g., nails, screw, and bolts) to be of a metal material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the metal or metal alloy of Wollard as the material of the fastener disclosed by Albertson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Albertson in view of Wollard fails to disclose --wherein the binder is electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--.
Matthews discloses a fastener (e.g., staples, nails, and the like) adapted to be driven into or through material to be fastened, the fastener (staple) comprising a core member and a plastic body, wherein the plastic body is a thermoplastic with cold flow properties (e.g., nylon and polypropylene), and the body of the plastic material can completely cover the cover member ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews).
Matthews does not explicitly recite that the thermoplastic material is electrically insulating. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that the thermoplastic material can be electrically insulating. NPL-4 discloses that polypropylene can be used as an alternative to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as insulation for electrical cables ([Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). Therefore, as evidenced by NPL-4, the polypropylene thermoplastic resin disclosed by Matthews is electrically insulating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fastener of Matthews with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard in order to have --the binder be electrically insulating, and the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fastener of Matthews with the binder of the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, from the stand-point of having fasteners adapted to be driven into of through material to be fastened produced in a variety of colors, and which have advantages in holding power, easier penetration, freedom from corrosion, and increased columnar strength ([Co. 1: li. 10-19] of Matthews). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, as claimed.)
Albertson in view of Wollard and Matthews further failed to disclose --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--.
Eibon discloses a multilayer composite coating on a substrate, the multilayer composite coating comprising an opaque coating layer of a coating composition, the coating composition comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, wherein the pigment composition comprises: colored inorganic pigment particles; metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles (e.g., aluminum flakes); and interference pigment particles ([0001], [0006], [0057]-[0059], [0092], [0105], and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the substrate can be various metallic substrates, such as ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals ([0012] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Matthews, respectively, in order to have --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Matthews, from the stand-point of having a ferrous or non-ferrous metallic substrate having a coating with the appearance of a tri-coat coating system in fewer than three coating layers and a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001] and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties ([0003] and [0012] of Eibon), As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Matthews to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners.)
Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T), where T is 3.0--.
Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 22: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of fasteners have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color, wherein CT is 40--.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 25: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon teaches that the coating applied to at least the portion of the fastener body comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties ([0034] of Wollard).
Regarding Claim 31: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the fasteners comprise at least one of bolts, screws, nuts, or rivets ([Col. 6: li. 25-30] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 32: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a difference in at least one of head style, drive type, tread profile, length or body diameter ([Col. 2: li. 47-55], [Col. 6: li. 25-30 and 47-50] and [Col. 7: li. 63-65] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 33: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a different in material composition between groups of fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 47-55] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 34: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the material composition comprises at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or copper ([0012] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 35: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises an epoxy-based binder ([0061], [0063], [0064], and [0091] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 36: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises at least one of an acrylic binder, a polyurethane binder, or a polyester binder ([0058]-[0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 37: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the coating electrically isolates the fastener body form the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews; [Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). (In the instant case, since the coating of Matthews is of a material that electrically isolates the metallic fastener body from the metallic component, it would also reduce galvanic corrosion.)
Regarding Claim 39: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite that --that the plurality of aluminum flakes impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating--. However, Eibon does disclose that the pigment imparts color and/or other opacity and/or other visual effects to the composition ([0057] of Eibon). In that Eibon provides the same aluminum flakes as the applicants, they are considered by the examiner to impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the coating comprises a continuous layer covering the fastener body (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses a portion of the fastener (e.g., head) is completely covered by the coating (i.e., a continuous coating layer on the head).)
Regarding Claim 41: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the binder further comprises at least one additive selected from a cross-linking agent ([0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 42: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the coating is configured to reduce exposure of the fastener body to chemical exposure (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, because the coating entirely covers at least an exposed portion of the fastener, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, that that coated portion would have reduced chemical exposure to the fastener due to the presence of the coating.)
Regarding Claim 43: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the plurality of metallic components (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson; [0043] of Wollard) can comprise dissimilar metals from the metallic fastener body ([0041] of Wollard; [0012] of Eibon). (In the instant case, the structure (ref. #344) of Wollard can be considered equivalent to one of the metallic components.)
Regarding Claim 44: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the coating provides a barrier between the fastener body and the plurality of metallic components to mitigate galvanic corrosion ([Col. 1: li. 10-19], [Col. 2: li. 4-13, 18-21, 33-36, and 44-48], and [Col. 3: li. 9-18] of Matthews; [Pg. 9: li. 34-36] of NPL-4). (In the instant case, because the coating (which comprises the resin) covers the portion of the fastener that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the fastener and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the fastener body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, which would mitigate galvanic corrosion as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 45: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the coating includes at least one pigments selected from titanium dioxide or chromium oxides ([0100]-[0104] of Eibon).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Matthews (US 3,076,373 A), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 38: Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of aluminum flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon in order to have --the plurality of aluminum flakes be oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Matthews, and Eibon, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). (In the instant case, Millar discloses that the oriented [light] reflective aluminum flakes are aligned parallel to a surface of the substrate and concentrated below a surface of the coating, ([Col. 1: li. 44-49] of Millar). As such, the concentrated layer of reflective aluminum flakes would constitute a barrier layer with respect to light.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights