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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai (US Patent Application 2020/0070477 A1, published 05 Mar. 2020, hereinafter Sai) in view of Heckert and Zaeh (“Laser surface pre-treatment of aluminum for hybrid joints with glass fibre reinforced thermoplastics,” Physics Procedia, Vol. 56, pp. 1171-1181, published 2014, hereinafter Heckert) and evidence provided by Jing et al. ("Surface modification and effects on tribology by laser texturing in Al2O3," Applied Optics, Vol. 60, No. 31, pp 9696-9705, published Nov. 2021, hereinafter Jing).
Regarding claims 1-6, Sai teaches metal-resin joined body and a method to form his metal-resin joined body, in which an oxide film is heated so as to increase the joining strength of the metal-resin joined body (Abstract). Sai teaches that a pulsed laser is used to irradiate the surface of the metal substrate (paragraph 0028), and his process involves inserting the member into an injection molding machine and injecting a molten resin toward the oxide film of the inserted metal member inside the injection molding mold (paragraph 0031). Sai teaches the metal substrate is aluminum (paragraph 0050), and an oxide film on the surface of the metal substrate contains Al2O3 and the like, which is formed by an alumite treatment (paragraphs 0058 and 0120). Sai teaches that the spacing of the deformations formed on the surface of the aluminum can be set to 1 to 50 µm (paragraph 0061 and Figure 2). Sai teaches the resin contains glass fibers (paragraph 0079).
Sai does not disclose the shape of the protrusions on the surface of his aluminum member.
Heckert teaches the formation of microscopic structures with structure heights of 100 nm to 200 µm using a pulsed laser surface pre-treatment for producing hybrid plastic-aluminum joints (Abstract, page 1174, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, and Table 2).
Given that Sai and Heckert are drawn to laser surface pre-treatment of aluminum for hybrid aluminum-resin joints, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form microscopic structures of the dimensions taught by Heckert on the surface of the aluminum member of the metal-resin joined body taught by Sai. Since Sai and Heckert are both drawn to laser surface pre-treatment of aluminum for hybrid aluminum-resin joints, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming microscopic structures of the dimensions taught by Heckert on the surface of the aluminum member of the metal-resin joined body taught by Sai. Further, Heckert teaches that with laser surface pre-treatment high joint strengths are obtained (Abstract).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the dimensions of the surface microstructure from the overlapping portions of the range taught by Heckert because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
It is the examiner’s position that given the range of structure height taught by Heckert and given the same pulsed laser processing to form the structures is taught by Sai and Heckert as used in the current invention, the diameter of the structures would also overlap with the claimed range for structure diameter.
Sai teaches forming an alumina film on the surface of the aluminum.
Sai in view of Heckert does not disclose that the alumina consists of amorphous alumina and α-alumina nor that the alumina comprises more α-alumina than amorphous alumina.
As evidenced by Jing, during laser surface texturing, crystalline phases and amorphous phases are generated (page 9696, 2nd column, 1st paragraph), and alumina that encounters rapid melting and solidification during laser texturing of the surface forms several phases, with α-alumina being one of the most stable phases, and amorphous alumina is generated due to the rapid cooling of the alumina (page 9697, 1st column, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, due to the laser irradiation, there would necessarily be α-alumina and amorphous alumina present in the textured surface of the metal-resin joined body taught by Sai in view of Heckert. Further, it is the examiner’s position that, given α-alumina is one of the most stable alumina phases, the amount of α-alumina will necessarily be greater than the amount of amorphous alumina in the textured surface of the metal-resin joined body taught by Sai in view of Heckert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aizawa et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0320247 A1, published 09 Nov. 2017) teaches a metal-resin composite with surface voids with a maximum dimension of 1000 nm or smaller. Demir et al. (“Fibre laser texturing for surface functionalization,” Physics Procedia, Vol. 41, pp 759-768, published 2013) teaches the use of laser to improve adhesion, with submicron roughness levels. Gu et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0001441 A1, published 03 Jan. 2019) teaches a method of making plastic-metal junctions via a laser, with pore sizes of 1 nm to 1 mm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787