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, 6-7 and 16-17 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 6/9/2026. Claims 2, 8, 20 and 22 are canceled. Claim 21 remains withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1. 3-7, 9-19 and 23 are currently under examination.
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, 3-7, 9-19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR3079240(FR240), whose machine translation is attached and relied upon, and further in view of GB965837A(GB837)
FR240 teaches a method for treating Al or Al alloy part(lines 112-118), comprising:
Anodizing the part in an aqueous bath comprising sulfuric acid(sulfuric anodic oxidation OAS) in a concentration of 150-250g/l at 15-25°C(lines 219-230, 248-258), followed by applying a direct voltage that rises at a rate of 1-10V/min until a voltage value of 8-20V is reached(lines 253-258);
Clogging the anodic layer in an aqueous solution comprising deionized water with resistivity greater than 10MOhms(lines 394-398).
However, FR240 does not explicitly teach the claimed alkali metal or alkaline earth metal silicate in the clogging treatment solution.
GB837 teaches treating a porous anodic layer on an Al surface with a silicate containing solution sodium silicate in a concentration of 1g/l to saturation or 0.1-30% (page 3 lines 39-59) at a temperature of 150°F to the boiling point(page 3, lines 59-69).33 Examples of GB837 further teaches a treatment temperature ranges from 190°F to 210°F(page 4-5). GB837 further teaches that the anodic layer is formed by a sulfuric acid containing electrolyte(page 1, lines 22-37).
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-19 and 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the sodium silicate solution as taught by GB837 into the clogging solution of FR240 in order to greatly improve the corrosion resistance of the anodic layer as taught by GB837(page 1 line 76 and page 2 line 2).
Additionally, the various process conditions such as the anodizing temperature the amount of sodium silicate, and silicate treatment temperature, clogging final voltage in the process of FR240 in view of GB837 overlap the claimed process conditions. The lower limit of the voltage rise rate(i.e. 1V/min) in the process of FR240 is very close to the claimed less than 1V/min. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP2144.05.
With respect to clogging treatment time of about 15 to about 25 minutes as recited in claim 1, GB837 further teaches that the sodium silicate treatment of the porous anodic layer on the surface of Al or Al alloy may comprise two treatment steps, both using a sodium silicate containing solution, in a total amount of 5-30minutes. Therefore, the two step sodium silicate treatment as taught by FR240 in view of GB837 also reads on the claimed clogging step, with a treatment time encompassing the amended treatment time of about 15 to about 25 minutes. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (overlapping ranges). The selection of claimed clogging treatment time from the sodium silicate treatment time disclosed by FR240 in view of GB837 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since FR240 in view of GB837 teaches the same sealing function conducted during the sodium silicate treatment time of FE240 in view of GB837.
Regarding claim 4, since FR240 in view of GB837 teaches a process that applies to Al alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the process of FR240 in view of GB837 to any of the claimed Al alloy with expected success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that unexpected results are found in the OAS(sulfuric anodic oxidation), the slower the voltage rises, the greater the bio-corrosion resistance in the anodic layer, as supported by the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6/9/2026 as well as example 2 with results in Table 5 of the instant specification.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6/9/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-19 and 23 based upon FR240 in view of GB837 as set forth in the last Office action because: Test Specimen 10 and 12, with 13V plateau voltage(i.e. outside of the claimed 6-10V) during fine OAS anodization and silicate containing clogging solution, has the same coating results (i.e. very slight color discoloration, and infinite ohmic resistance) as Test Specimen 8 with 10V plateau voltage during fine OAS anodization. Additionally, the data presented on page 2 under Item 7 of the Declaration includes voltage rise rate during OAS anodization ranging from 5 min to 15 min. However, the instant claim 1 only recites the voltage rise at a rate of less than 1 V/min. They are not time range for voltage rise rate recited instant claim 1. Therefore, the data supporting advantage of slower voltage rising rate, measured in terms of time, during anodization step as alleged by the applicant is not commensurate with the scope of independent claim 1.
Additionally, the Declaration discussed how using ultra-high deionized water in the clogging step (i.e. silicate sealing bath) produces better results against biocorrosion compared to using tap water, and sealing temperature above 97°C(near boiling) exhibited complete corrosion resistance with zero pits compared to 1-2 pits when sealing temperature was 80°C.
Applicant’s arguments are also not commensurate with the scope of instant claim 1, because no other claimed process conditions, such as claimed resistivity, silicate concentration and sealing time. Without information on other process conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art will not be able to determine if the alleged superior results are from using deionized water or higher sealing temperature.
Applicant further argues that GB837 teaches a two-step clogging/sealing process, instead of the one-step clogging/sealing process as claimed, therefore, does not remedy GB837’s lack of teaching of claimed silicate clogging/sealing step.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because it the instant claims use open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” which allows presence of additional process steps, including the additional clogging/sealing steps. Additionally, as admitted by the applicant, the second step of the two-step clogging/sealing process as taught by GB837 teaches the sealing bath temperature of 88°C(190°F) to boiling point for a sealing time of 5-30 minutes, which significantly overlap the claimed sealing bath temperature and duration. Furthermore, instant claims do not limit the claimed clogging to a single immersion step.
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