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
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabot et al. (US 2011/0284381) in view of Curran et al. (US 2017/0009364).
Considering claim 1, Cabot teaches metal alloys with an anodic coating (abstract) for electronic housings, aerospace parts, etc. (Paragraph 38). The article comprises an aluminum substrate with an anodized oxide layer (Paragraph 20). The coating comprises at least one of microcrystalline aluminum oxide and aluminum hydroxide (Paragraph 38) and where the anodized coating is sealed and forms boehmite (Paragraph 46) which is aluminum oxy-hydroxide (Paragraph 8). The pores of the coating are filled with a metal hydroxide material such that the interior and exterior portions of the pores are filled (Paragraph 43) of one or more of Ni, Fe, etc. (Paragraph 41) (e.g. a corrosion inhibitor). However, Cabot does not teach the claimed concentration differential.
In a related field of endeavor, Curran teaches sealed anodic coatings (abstract) where the anodic oxide film contains nickel ions from the sealing process (Paragraph 19). The article comprises a metal of Al, etc. which is anodized (Paragraph 24) for housings of electronic devices (Paragraph 25). The coating is subjected to a post-sealing treatment to repair minor damage (Paragraph 22) and to at least partially remove Ni ions and other unwanted constituents from the coating (Paragraphs 23 and 36) such that the exterior of the coating contains less Ni than the interior portion (Paragraph 34; Fig. 2). The removal of Ni from the exterior makes a device better suited for wearables (Paragraphs 4 and 20).
As both Cabot and Curran teach anodized coatings they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of Cabot with the partial removal of Ni from the exterior (e.g. having an exterior portion distal from the interior with a smaller concentration of corrosion inhibitor) as this is known to make for the device to be better suited for a wearable electronic and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 2, Curran teaches where the sealing solution comprises chromates of aluminum oxidichromate and aluminum oxichromate (Paragraph 30).
Considering claim 3, Cabot teaches trivalent chromium for the sealing material (Paragraph 6).
Considering claim 4, Cabot teaches anodized aluminum (Paragraph 20).
Considering claims 5-6, Cabot teaches where the article may be an aerospace component or a housing (Paragraph 38) encompassing the claimed case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simmons (US 2007/0256591) teaches anodized coatings with materials similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights