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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (“Study of anodizing process on aluminum foam to improve the corrosion behavior”) in view of Yokoyama (“Aqueous electrophoretic deposition of citric-acid-stabilized copper nanoparticles”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Rossi teaches a method for anodizing an aluminum foam wherein the foam is immersed in an anodizing (i.e. electrolytic) bath. (pg. 2 §2 “Experimental”). The anodized foam is then subjected to a pore-sealing treatment (pg. 2-3 §1 “Introduction” and §2 “Experimental”)
However, Rossi does not teach the inclusion of a nano material in the bath.
Yokoyama teaches a method of depositing Cu nanoparticles on an anode via aqueous electrophoretic deposition (Abstract). Yokoyama also teaches that their process is used to deposit Cu onto electronic devices (pg. 93 §1 “Introduction”). While Yokoyama teaches that their nanoparticles have high electrical conductivity (pg. 93 §1 “Introduction”), they are silent on their thermal conductivity. However, it is known in the art that Cu materials would also be good thermal conductors.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Yokoyama’s Cu nanoparticle deposition method into Rossi’s aluminum anodization method because the deposition step would enable an aluminum foam with improved electrical and thermal conductivity properties. It would also be obvious for a person skilled in the art that the pores of Rossi’s foam would be filled with Cu nanoparticles after being subjected to Yokoyama’s deposition method. Furthermore, it would be appreciated by a person skilled in the art that that the combination of Rossi’s and Yokoyama’s methods imparts the following benefits:
Rossi’s foam anodization step can be conducted in Yokoyama’s dispersed Cu nanoparticle solution.
The anodization of Rossi’s foam and the electrophoretic deposition of Yokoyama’s Cu nanoparticles would happen simultaneously upon application of an electric field.
Regarding claim 2, Rossi teaches that their foam has a porosity of 79%, which is within the claimed porosity of greater than 30%.
Regarding claim 13, Rossi degreases their foam samples in acetone before anodizing. Additionally, Rossi rinses and washes their foam samples before anodizing. (pg. 2 §2 “Experimental”). Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would know to clean the surface of the metal structure before anodizing because it provides well-known and predictable benefits (e.g. removal of impurities from the surface, better nanoparticle adhesion, improved anodization of the foam surface, etc.).
Claims 3-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (“Study of anodizing process on aluminum foam to improve the corrosion behavior”) and Yokoyama (“Aqueous electrophoretic deposition of citric-acid-stabilized copper nanoparticles”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ken (JP 2004035961 A1), as evidenced by Nishiyabu (“Powder space-holder metal injection molding (PSH-MIM) of microporous materials”).
Regarding claim 3, neither Rossi nor Yokoyama teach how the aluminum foam is produced.
Ken teaches a method for producing an aluminum foam via injection molding. Ken teaches a continuous method in contrast to prior methods [0003-0005]. Additionally, MIM processes are well-known production techniques in the art of making porous metals (See Nishiyabu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize Ken’s injection molding method to produce the metal foam used in the combined teachings of Rossi and Yokoyama because MIM methods are typically used to make metal foams and Ken’s method enables a continuous forming process compared to prior techniques.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, Ken’s method utilizes ADC12 alloy particles (i.e. and aluminum alloy powder) and titanium hydride powders (i.e. a foam material) [0020].
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to machine the foam into a desired shape to accommodate a production process minus any evidence showing an unexpected result.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, while Rossi, Yokoyama, and Ken are silent on injecting gas during the MIM process, the use of gases as foaming agents in injection molding is well-known in the art. A person skilled in the art would thus be compelled to inject gases such as oxygen to help facilitate foaming during the injection molding process.
Regarding claim 9, Ken teaches that the raw powder material comprises 0.1 wt% of titanium hydride [0020], which is outside the claimed range of 1.5-2.5 wt%. However, a person skilled in the art knows that the porosity of the aluminum foam is dependent on the ratio between the metal powder and the foaming material. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would know to adjust the titanium hydride ratio to obtain a desired porosity. Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (“Study of anodizing process on aluminum foam to improve the corrosion behavior”) and Yokoyama (“Aqueous electrophoretic deposition of citric-acid-stabilized copper nanoparticles”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gschneidner (“Rare Earth Metals”, ASM Handbook Vol.2: Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special Purpose Metals)
Regarding claim 10, neither Rossi nor Yokoyama teach hole sealing treatments using a rare earth metal.
Gschneidner teaches that rare earth metal coatings are typically used on aluminum alloys to provide corrosion protection (pg. 731 § “Corrosion Protection of Metals”).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply an REM coating to the metal foam as taught by Rossi and Yokoyama because doing so would improve the corrosion resistance of the metal foam. Furthermore, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art that the application of this REM coating would in effect seal the pores on an aluminum foam surface.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi (Study of anodizing process on aluminum foam to improve the corrosion behavior”) and Yokoyama (“Aqueous electrophoretic deposition of citric-acid-stabilized copper nanoparticles”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nadia (WO 2014141071 A1).
Regarding claim 13, neither Rossi nor Yokoyama teach a sandblasting treatment.
Nadia teaches a method for the electrodeposition of nano-graphene particles and metallic layers on the surface of an aluminum foam (Abstract; Pg.2 Ln.33 – Pg.3 Ln. 10; pg. 8 Ln. 2-5). Nadia conducts a sandblasting treatment on the surface of their aluminum foam in order to advantageously activate the surface.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to conduct a sandblasting treatment (as taught by Nadia) on the surface of the aluminum foam of Rossi and Yokoyama because it would enable the advantageous benefit of activate the foam surface for further processing. While Nadia teaches sandblasting via glass beads rather than via a ceramic, a person skilled in the art would know that ceramic sandblasting is an obvious variant of glass bead sandblasting.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights