DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 by cancelation of Group II, claims 9 and 11 in the reply filed on 8 June 2026 is acknowledged. No claims were withdrawn or amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text of Fig. 7 is not legible. The font size and weight make the text difficult to read and reproduce. See MPEP §608.02(V) and 37 CFR 1.84(l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains headings, e.g. "[Problem to be Solved]," is replete with grammatical errors, and generally does not conform to the requirements of a patent abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 23, on line 5 of [0059], reference character 6 is used to designate the ohmmeter of Fig. 6, while Fig. 6 and [0081] both use reference character 8 to designate the ohmmeter.
On page 23, on the second-to-last line of [0059], “cupper” should read “copper.” “…placed to a surface” should read “placed on a surface.”
On page 34, the heading “Industrial Availability” should read “Industrial Applicability.”
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any additional errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “appearing cracks” should read “cracks appearing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4, “500KHz-1GHz” should read “500 kHz – 1 GHz,” as a lowercase letter K is the proper prefix for “kilo.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the color tone range of “pale dark brown, deep dark brown to black.” The claim is considered indefinite because there are three colors recited, and therefore there is a question or doubt as to what range of colors are actually required by the claims. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be understood to refer to the range of pale dark brown to black.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20170092209 A, as previously attached) in view of Hotta (JP 2019147988 A, using attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kim teaches a material consisting of aluminum or an aluminum alloy including an anode-oxidization film ([0001] and throughout; [0044]: aluminum substrate “in which other elements or compounds are substantially absent”). The oxide layer has a microhardness of 280 to 1000 Hv ([0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). The claimed range of “not less than HV470,” reciting no upper limit, is therefore obvious. The aluminum oxide film is 15 to 50 microns thick, fully within the claimed range of 6 to 50 μm ([0144]). The color of the film may range from pale dark brown, deep dark brown, to black ([0122]). Kim does not teach an electric resistance not more than 0.01 Ω, i.e. between the surface and base substrate as detailed by the specification.
However, Hotta teaches another aluminum material including an anodic oxide film ([0001]), with a conductive property in the anisotropic/Dt direction ([0042]: conductive material; Fig. 15). The material responsible for the conductive property of the film is ideally a metal with resistivity of 10-18 Ω·cm or less ([0086]-[0087]). While not specified as resistance, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that using a material with such low resistivity in a sufficiently thin film would lead to the claimed resistance of “not more than 1×10-2 Ω.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode-oxidization film disclosed by Kim by making the oxide layer conductive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to utilize the claimed material in applications which require a conductive oxide film, such as capacitors, battery electrodes, and sensors (Hotta [0006]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim in view of Hotta does not teach wherein the material of claim 1 includes the anode-oxidization film of which heat resistance provides a color difference (Delta E) not more than 3.0 in a heat resistance test at 300 deg C for two weeks, or 500 deg C for one hour, before and after heating and cooling.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01(I)-(II).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20170092209 A) and Hotta (JP 2019147988 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (JP 2005272904 A, using attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Hotta teaches that anodizing aluminum metals and alloys may be done to improve corrosion resistance (Kim [0004]), but is silent as to wherein the material of claim 1 has, more specifically, “the anode-oxidization film having corrosion resistance of the material not less than RN 7 under a neutral salt-water spraying test for 720 hours.”
However, Ito teaches an aluminum or aluminum alloy with an anodic oxidization film ([0001]). Examples and comparative examples are shown in Table 1 for a 240-hour neutral salt spray test according to JIS Z 2371 ([0020]). The inventive examples 1-6 and comparative examples 1 and 2 are able to achieve a rating number of no less than 7, as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
759
1179
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the neutral salt spray tests applied to the Ito embodiments are for 240 hours and not the claimed 720 hours, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ito to conduct routine experimentation in order to obtain an aluminum or aluminum material with an anodic-oxidization film able to withstand a neutral salt-water spraying test for 720 hours with an end corrosion resistance of 7 or higher. See MPEP §2144.05(II). The claim of corrosion resistance no less than RN 7 under a neutral salt-water spraying test is therefore obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20170092209 A) and Hotta (JP 2019147988 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curran et al. (US 2017/0088968 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim modified by Hotta does not teach wherein the material of claim 1 includes the anode-oxidization film without cracks appearing after heating at 200 deg C for 30 minutes when viewed from a front side.
However, Curran teaches an aluminum alloy substrate with an anodic oxidization coating ([0008]-[0009]). The pores of the oxide layer contain a metal of high thermal expansion coefficient (Abstract), resulting in an anodized coating that does not substantially craze (equivalent to cracking, see [0030]) after exposure to a target temperature of about 200 °C (Claims 11 and 16; [0063]). The duration of 30 minutes is not specified for 200 °C, but an embodiment of the material is subjected to a heat treatment of 175 °C for 1 hour ([0057]). It is within the ability of one skilled in the art to obtain an anodized coating which does not crack after heating to 200 °C for 30 minutes, by the teachings of Curran ([0063]). The claimed time and temperature are therefore obvious.
Regarding the limitation of viewing from a front side, if all sides of the material are able to resist cracking, then it is not significant that the side observed be the front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a high thermal expansion coefficient material in the pores of the anodized aluminum material taught by Kim and Hotta in order to achieve an anodized aluminum material which does not crack after heating to 200 °C for 30 minutes when viewed from a front side. One skilled in the art would make this modification in order to create a material which can retain its structural integrity and corrosion resistance after exposure to such high temperatures.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20170092209 A) and Hotta (JP 2019147988 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son (KR 101485370 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not teach wherein the material of claim 1 “includes the anode-oxidization film of which an electro-magnetic shield effect of the material having the anode-oxidization film of aluminum or aluminum alloy is not less than 30 dB in a range of 500 kHz – 1 GHz.” Hotta suggests that the conductive microstructure of the anode-oxidization film may be used in electromagnetic wave shielding ([0003]), but does not teach any measurement of electromagnetic shielding.
However, Son teaches another anodized aluminum material ([0001], [0031]) with “an electromagnetic shielding effect of 39.4 SE(dB) to 99.1 E(dB) within the frequency range of 30 MHz to 1.5 GHz” (last page, unmarked paragraph between [0056] and [0080]). The shielding effect taught by Son is greater than the claimed “not less than 30 dB.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to evaluate the electromagnetic shielding properties of the anodized aluminum material taught by Kim and Hotta and optimize the material for electromagnetic shielding of not less than 30 dB in the claimed range of 500 kHz – 1 GHz. While the 30 MHz – 1.5 GHz range taught by Son is not identical to the claimed range of 500 kHz – 1 GHz, the ranges overlap significantly, and it is within the ability of one skilled in the art to optimize the anodized aluminum material taught by Kim and Hotta to exhibit the claimed electromagnetic shielding effect of “not less than 30 dB in a range of 500 kHz – 1 GHz.” The claimed electromagnetic shielding effect is therefore obvious. The advantage of making such a modification is to enable the use of the anodized aluminum material in applications requiring electromagnetic shielding, such as coaxial cables (Hotta [0003], [0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Hotta does not teach wherein the material of claim 1 “includes the anode-oxidization film of which total emission rate is not less than 75% (0.75) in a middle far infrared region in a wavelength of 3-6 µm and is not less than 80% (0.80) in a middle far infrared - far infrared in a wavelength of 3- 25 µm when a measurement temperature of measured substance is set to 100 °C and an emission rate of a full radiator is to be 100% (1.00).”
However, the anodized aluminum material taught by Son is also useful as a far-infrared radiator ([0001], [0030]). The total emission rate is 0.898, or 89.8%, from 5 to 20 µm at 55 °C compared to a black body radiator which is understood in the art to refer to a radiator with 100% emissivity (Table 1 as below; unmarked paragraphs below [0056]).
PNG
media_image2.png
384
1657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the temperature and wavelengths of measurement used by Son are not identical to the claimed 100 °C and 3 – 6 µm and 3 – 25 µm, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art to optimize the anodized aluminum material of Kim and Hotta to achieve the claimed emission properties, by applying the teachings of Son. The claimed properties of “total emission rate not less than 75% (0.75) in a middle far infrared region in a wavelength of 3-6 µm” and “not less than 80% (0.80) in a middle far infrared - far infrared in a wavelength of 3- 25 µm when a measurement temperature of measured substance is set to 100 °C” are therefore obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights