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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 16, 19-21 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 7/6/2026. Claim 17 is canceled. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 18-21 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments in the response filed 7/6/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the concentration of sulfuric acid of the fluorine-free acidic solution" in is 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ponzellini et al. US 2007/0264511(Ponzellini), and further in view of Newman, “Etching of Aluminum and Its Alloys”, ASM Handbook, Vol.2A, Aluminum Science and Technology, pages 586-589, Novermber 30th, 2018(Newman)
Ponzellini teaches a process for treating a metallic coil, wherein the metallic coil may be a 5000 or 6000 series aluminum alloy(abstract, [0002, 0013]). The surface of the Al alloy is acid cleaned, alkaline etched, rinsed with deionized water[0015-0018, 0025], then treated with a conversion coating solution comprising 20-300mg/l of Ti compound[0038] and 5-400mg/l of Zr compound[0039], rinsing the conversion coated Al alloy surface with deionized water[0019,0026,0065], and drying[Table 1). Ponzellini further teaches that the ratio of Ti:Zr is 8:1 to 1:2[0043], which is equivalent to a Zr:Ti ratio of 2:1 to 1:8.
However, Ponzillini does not explicitly teach the claimed etching using a fluorine-free acidic solution. Ponzillini also does not explicitly teach the claimed etch removal from 0.01-0.2g/m2 for 6xxx alloys and from 0.1 to 0.2g/m2 for 5xxx alloys.
Newman teaches acidic etching, just like other etching methods, can be used to prepare the aluminum and its alloys, such as 5005, 5052, 5457(i.e. 5xxx Al alloy), 6061,6063, 6463(6xxx Al alloy)(page 586, left column, bottom section), for further processing such as conversion coating (pg. 586, left column 1st paragraph, pg. 588, discussion following “Acid Etching”). Newman provides in an embodiment Solution 3, an acidic etching solution comprising 80g of chromic acid, 75ml of sulfuric acid and 4L of water (page 588, bottom left table).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11-12, 14, 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the acidic etching Solution 3 of Newman into the etching step in the process of Ponzellini in order to remove heat treating strains as taught by Newman(pg. 588, 2nd paragraph under “Acid Etching”).
Additionally, ratio of Zr:Ti in the conversion coating solution of Ponzellini in view of Newman encompasses the claimed Zr:Ti ratios as recited in claims 1, 12 and 20. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed Zr:Ti ratio from the Zr:Ti ratio of Ponzellini in view of Newman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Ponzellini in view of Newman teach the same utility in their Zr:Ti ratio.
Furthermore, according to Solution 3 of Newman, 75ml of sulfuric acid and 4L of water is present. Since the density of sulfuric acid 1840g/l, the concentration of sulfuric acid in Solution 3 is 1840 x (0.075 / (0.075+4)) = 33.87g/l, which reads on the claimed fluoric acid concentrations as recited in claims 5 and 14. Newman further teaches presence of chromic acid, which reads on the claimed accelerator as recited in claim 11, The operating temperature of Solution 3 is 60-70°C for an immersion time of 30s to 2min, which reads on the claimed fluorine-free acidic solution temperature of about 55°C to about 85°C as recited in claim 11. The immersion time of 30secs to 2 mins for Solution 3 of Newman overlaps the claimed treatment time of about 5 to about 30secs as recited in claim 11. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed treatment time from the treatment time of Newman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Newman teaches the same utilities in its disclosed treatment time.
Lastly, since Ponzellini in view of Newman disclose a fluorine-free acidic etching solution that contains the same amount of sulfuric acid with presence of an accelerator, and the etching treatment temperature of Ponzellini in view of Newman is the same as claimed, and the etching treatment time of Ponzellini in view of Newman is similar to the claimed etching treatment time, the examiner concludes that the etching step of Ponzellini in view of Newman would have produced similar amounts of etching removal for 5xxx and 6xxx series aluminum alloy as claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the Ti content in the conversion coating solution of Ponzellini in view of Newman significantly overlaps the claimed Ti content. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Ponzellini further teaches the source of Ti is Ti complex fluorides(i.e. hexafluorotitanic acid) and the source of Zr is Zr complex fluoride(i.e. hexafluorozirconic acid)[0040-0041] and hydrofluoric acid[0056].
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the acid pickling/etch solution of Ponzellini in view of Newman is fluorine-free and comprises sulfuric acid as claimed. Fig. 2 of Newman further teaches using a nitric acid etch.
Regarding claim 6, the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman applies to 6xxx series aluminum alloys, which encompasses the claimed Al alloys.
Regarding claims 7-8, Ponzellini further teaches that the conversion coating solution can be applied by immersion or spraying[0064].
Regarding claim 9, Newman further teaches that the acidic etching solution can be applied by spraying(pg. 587, right column lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 10, Newman does not teaches the presence of Al and Mg in the acidic pickling/etching solution.
Regarding claim 15, since the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman applies to both 5xxx and 6xxx series aluminum alloys, the examiner concludes that the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman does not require changing or modifying the treatments when switching the line from 5xxx alloy to the 6xxx alloy as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, since the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman applies a significantly similar coating solution as claimed and using the same spraying coating method as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman would have produced a coating with similar Zr/Ti weight ratio as claimed. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Zr/Ti weight ratio from the disclosed Zr/Ti weight ratio of Ponzellini in view of Newman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Ponzellini in view of Newman teach the same utilities in their disclosed Zr/Ti weight ratio.
Regarding claim 18, Newman does not teach that its etching step produces any pitting.
Regarding claim 21, the Zr/Ti weight ratio as taught by Ponsellini in view of Newman encompasses the claimed Zr/TI weight ratio. Ponsellini further teaches that the coating has a Ti content of 3-300mg/m2[0067], which encompass the claimed Ti content in the coating weight. Based on the Zr/Ti weight ratio of 2:1 to 1:8 as taught by Ponsellini, the coating of Ponsellini would have contain amounts of Al that encompasses the claimed Al content in the coating layer. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). The selection of claimed Zr/Ti ratio and the claimed Ti and Zr contents from the Zr/Ti ratio, Ti and Zr contents in the coating of Ponsellini in view of Newman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Ponsellini in view of Newman teach the same utilities in their disclosed the Zr/Ti ratio, Ti and Zr contents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that Newman’s etching step is different from instant claim 1 because it is intended to be applied prior to anodization.
Broader scope of Newman clearly teaches that in addition to anodizing, chemical etching is often used prior to conversion coating at various places of Newman’s disclosure (abstract; page 586, left column, paragraph under “Chemical Etching”; page 587, right column, second full paragraph). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the etching step is also suitable as a pretreatment for subsequent conversion coating step.
Applicant additionally argues that the etching step of Newman is not applied to a coiled product as claimed.
The rejection ground is based on combined teaching of Ponzellini and Newman. Primary reference Ponzellini teaches a surface treatment process for 5xxx and 6xxx aluminum and its alloy. Newman provides a general teaching for etching aluminum and its alloys prior to chemical conversion coating treatment and Newman does not exclude applying the etching solution to aluminum coils. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the aluminum etching step as taught by Newman into the process of Ponzellini with expected success.
Additionally, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply a fluorine-free acidic solution because Newman teaches benefits of a fluoride containing acidic etching solution.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because Newman teaches, in addition to hydrofluoric acid, other acids such as hydrochloric, nitric, sulfuric acids, etc. are also used in acid etching, with etching solution embodiments that do not contain fluoride (page 588, left column, see solutions 2-3; and Fig. 2), which read on the claimed acid etching solution.
Applicant further argues that claim 4 may only include “sulfuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid or mixture thereof”, but Solutions 1-3 of Newman additionally includes hydrofluoric acid in Solution 1 and chromic acid in Solutions 2-3.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because Fig.2 of Newman teaches a nitric acid etching step which reads on the instant claim 4.
Applicant further argues that Ponzellini in view of Newman do not disclose the specific 5xxx and 6xxx aluminum alloys as recited in claim 6.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because both Ponzellini and Newman teach surface treatments on 5xxx and 6xxx aluminum alloys which encompass the specific types of Al alloys as recited in claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the process of Ponzellini in view of Newman to the claimed specific types of 5xxx and 6xxx aluminum alloys with expected success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights