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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended in view of applicant’s response filed 1/28/2026. Claims 20 and 22 are canceled. Claim 21 remain withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1-19 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) 1-19 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 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 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 1-19 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 amended 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 comprises two treatment steps, both using a sodium silicate containing solution, in an 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 in the response file 1/28/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive for the same reason set forth in section 6 above.
.Conclusion
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