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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 19-25 and 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0165430 (Hesse).
In regards to independent claim 19, 22-24, and 32-36, Hesse is directed to a metallic flat product that can be systematically made available with such a fine, stochastic, or quasistochastic surface texture that after a typical automotive paint application it is only minimally perceptible by the human eye. (Abstract) Components are made from flat products which are subsequently coated with one or more multiple coats of paint in order to protect them and to optimize their visual appearance. (¶3) The quality of the visual appearance is judged by how far the surface texture of the respective metal substrate affects the surface of the paint finish. (¶3) Particularly high demands are placed on the appearance of the surface of automotive body panels visible from the outside, corresponding to a skin component or a structure part (¶4)
The purpose of Hesse is to offer optimized pre-conditions for a paint finish. (¶14) This is achieved by removing a possible slope in the basic area’s topography, filtering out high frequency portions by means of a Gaussian low-pass filter, and determining a frequency distribution of the height values with a class size of 0.1 microns. (¶15) The distance of the maxima of the frequency distribution of the height values amounts to 1 to 5 microns. (¶20) On a level, which lies exactly midway between peak and valley level, half the width of the valleys or peaks amounts to 40 microns or 100 microns at most, wherein at least 99.99% of topography measurement points possess a minimum distance to the edge of the valleys or peaks, which fulfills this condition. (¶21)
The distance to the edge of the valleys or peaks corresponds to the rv value. Figure 8a shows a height illustration. (¶87-88) This would correspond to the claimed average peak-to-valley heigh difference. The resulting product overlap the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness would exist.
Further, the dimensions result in a product that overlaps the claimed peak counts, and average distance from the valley edge. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness likewise exists for these properties.
The surface of the flat product is evaluated. (¶34) The surface topography is measured by means of a measurement system. (¶35) For this purpose measurement methods for measuring the roughness topography having a resolution less than 1.5 microns (laterally) and less than 0.05 microns vertically have proven suitable. (¶36)
The surface of a flat product in its precision shape is characterized by cavities, which are very evenly and finely distributed and possess a clearly defined maximum depth in a surface, which is otherwise as smooth as possible. (¶90) These cavities serve as a lubricant reservoir during tribological contact between tool and metal sheet. (¶90) Particularly deep crater structures, which would only show an effect in the case of surface levelling to a correspondingly strong degree, are avoided, since they would only form redundant lubricant sinks. (¶90) Therefore, the structure improves the surface quality of the resulting product.
In regards to the limitations of cold forming and hot forming, these are product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, however, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. These processes do not necessarily or inherently result in a product that is patentably distinct from that of the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed product is not patentably distinct from that of the prior art.
As to claim 20, it was known in the art to utilize surface texture with regularly arranged peaks in order to optimize the appearance. (¶8-11)
As to claim 21, the arithmetic roughness average is 1.5 microns at most. (¶65) This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claims 25 and 27-30, The flat product is provided with a paint coating, such as a corrosion protective layer, such as galvanizing. (¶22) As to the deposition processes, these are product-by-process limitations and do not necessarily or inherently result in a product that is patentably distinct from that of the prior art.
As to claim 31, good paint quality finishes have short waviness of less than 25 and long waviness of less than 8. (¶115) The invention is therefore based on the premise that the quality of the paint finish can be positively affected by specifically adjusting the surface texture. (¶113) Thus, structures of <0.1 mm (du) produce lower contrast of the paint finish by light refraction. Structures from 0.1 to 1 mm (Wa, Wb) lead to fuzziness of the profile lines in the paint reflection. (¶113) Therefore, the prior art product would be expected to meet the waviness limitation.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 11,421,309 (Kamat).
As discussed above in regards to independent claim 19, Hesse sets forth a flat metal panel having an optimized surface texture in order to improve the visual appearance of the final product, in particular an outer panel of an automobile. This reference is silent on use of an aluminum sheet within the product.
In the same field of endeavor of a structural component of an automobile, Kamat is directed to aluminum alloys that exhibit high strength for use in automotive and transportation applications. (Abstract) It is desirable to use aluminum alloys for automotive structural applications. (1:25-26) Government legislation has imposed mandatory mileage requirements for vehicles and thus less dense materials are needed for automotive designs to meet these restrictions. (1:38-42) Aluminum alloys are less dense than steel by a factor of 2.8. (1:42-45) Therefore, aluminum alloys are being used since it offers substantial weight reduction. (1:42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized aluminum as taught by Kamat as the flat product of Hesse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including selecting a known material that is less dense and is therefore useful in meeting the mandatory mileage requirements. Such use of less dense materials would improve the fuel economy of the automobile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784