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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 9-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-14 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 6-8 have been canceled. New claims 15-16 have been added. Claims 1-5 and 15-16 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “aluminum alloys resulting from methods such as additive manufacturing” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In this case, the claim is directed to a method, but any aluminum alloy capable of being used in additive manufacturing will be interpreted as reading on the claimed aluminum alloys resulting from methods such as additive manufacturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0047057 A1 of Bares (cited in prior Office action) in view of US 2011/0114494 A1 of Warburg, as evidenced by of “Conductivity, Salinity and Total Dissolved Solids” of Fondriest Environmental Inc (cited in prior Office action, hereinafter “Fondriest”).
Regarding claim 1, Bares teaches a method for anodizing a part made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, as well as a more general method of surface treatment of such a part using said anodizing method followed by a sealing step (Abstract, [0001], method reads on claimed method for post-anodization sealing anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy). Bares teaches the step of sealing the porous anodic layer may be of any type known by a person skilled in the art such as hydrothermal sealing, hot sealing with hexavalent chromium salts or with nickel salts, etc. ([0029]).
Regarding step A) of claim 1, Bares teaches an advantageous embodiment with a sealing step comprising immersion of the part in an aqueous bath containing a trivalent chromium salt and an oxidizing compound, with a temperature between 20 and 80°C and/or immersion of the part in water at a temperature between 98 and 100°C ([0030], temperatures overlap with claimed at a temperature between 20 and 80°C). Bares teaches the oxidizing compound may be of any type known per se for baths for post-anodizing sealing of aluminum or aluminum alloys such as potassium fluozirconate K2ZrF6 ([0032], oxidizing compound reads on claimed hexafluorozirconate salt and K2ZrF6 reads on claimed potassium hexafluorozirconate). Bares teaches the trivalent chromium salt may be supplied in any conventional form per se for treatments of post-anodizing sealing of aluminum, notably in the form of fluoride, chloride, nitrate, acetate, acetate hydroxide, sulfate, potassium sulfate, etc., of trivalent chromium, for example CrF3,xH2O, CrCl3,xH2O, Cr(NO3)3,xH2O, (CH3CO2)2Cr,xH2O, (CH3CO2)7Cr3(OH)2,xH2O, Cr2(SO4)3,xH2O, CrK(SO4)2,xH2O, etc.([0034], reads on claimed trivalent chromium salt). Bares further teaches a preferred embodiment uses chromium trifluoride CrF3 as the trivalent chromium salt ([0035], reads on claimed CrF3,xH2O).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Bares therefore reads on the limitation A) a step of impregnating an anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy, in an aqueous bath containing: a hexafluorozirconate salt selected from the group consisting of ammonium hexafluorozirconate ((NH4)2ZrF6), sodium hexafluorozirconate (Na2ZrF6), and potassium hexafluorozirconate (K2ZrF6), and a trivalent chromium salt selected from the group consisting of CrF3,xH2O, CrCl3,xH2O, Cr(NO3)3,xH2O, (CH3CO2)2Cr,xH2O, (CH3CO2)7Cr3(OH)2,xH2O, Cr2(SO4)3,xH2O, and CrK(SO4)2,xH2O,at a temperature between 20 and 80°C of claim 1.
Regarding step B) of claim 1, Bares teaches an advantageous embodiment with a sealing step comprising immersion of the part in water at a temperature between 98 and 100°C ([0030], immersion in water reads on claimed aqueous solution and temperatures overlap with claimed temperature of between 60 and 100°C).
While Bares does not explicitly disclose using demineralized water or deionized water, one of ordinary skill in the art of metallurgical processes understands the term “water” in this context to mean a purified water such as demineralized or deionized water. Using tap water for metallurgical processes in an industrial setting would introduce unacceptable levels of contamination and variability to the process. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Bares therefore reads on the limitation B) a sealing step carried out in an aqueous solution of deionized water at a temperature of between 60 and 100°C of claim 1.
Regarding step C) of claim 1, Bares teaches the sealing steps may be carried out in any order, and notably may be separated by one or more interposed rinsings with water ([0042] interposed rinsings read on the claimed post-sealing rinsing step, since interposed and final rinsings are well-known in the art and are commonly carried out at room temperature which is typically 25°C; the final rinsing of Bares therefore also reads on the claimed temperature between 15 and 75°C).
Bares therefore reads on the limitation C) a post-sealing rinsing step in a deionized water at a temperature between 15 and 75°C of claim 1.
However, Bares does not explicitly disclose B) a sealing step carried out in an aqueous solution at a pH of between 9 and 12 of deionized water having a conductivity between 1 and 100 μS/cm containing between 1 and 500 g/L of an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal silicate selected from the group consisting of lithium silicate, sodium silicate, potassium silicate, calcium silicate, and magnesium silicate of claim 1 and C) a post-sealing rinsing step in a deionized water having a conductivity between 1 and 100 μS/cm and at a temperature between 15 and 75°C of claim 1.
Regarding the conductivity of claim 1, electrical conductivity is an inherent property of deionized water and one of ordinary skill in the art understands that deionized water typically has low conductivity since it is deionized and one can look up the conductivity values of deionized water. Fondriest teaches conductivity, salinity & total dissolved solids (Title), and provides conductivity values for deionized water. Fondriest teaches if deionized water has equilibrated with air, the conductivity will be closer to 1 μS/cm at 25 °C and most standards allow for a conductivity range of 0.5-3 μS/cm at 25 °C for distilled water, depending on the length of time it has been exposed to air (Deionized Water section). Fondriest further teaches that the conductivity of deionized water or any nearly pure water increases by approximately 5% per degree Celsius (Deionized Water section). While Fondriest does not provide the conductivity at temperatures other than 25°C, one can perform the calculation using the 100°C temperature of Bares. When the deionized water has a conductivity of 1 μS/cm at 25°C, the conductivity at 26°C is 1.005 μS/cm (from multiplying initial conductivity of 1 μS/cm by 1.005 to reflect a 5% increase) and so on until a conductivity of 1.45 μS/cm at 100°C. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the conductivity of the deionized water of Bares to be approximately 1.45 μS/cm at 100°C of Bares, as evidenced by Fondriest, which lies within the claimed range, or 0.5-3 μS/cm, as evidenced by Fondriest, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the instant claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitation deionized water having a conductivity between 1 and 100 μS/cm of claim 1’s step B) and step C).
Regarding the solution of step B) of claim 1, Bares teaches the step of sealing the porous anodic layer may be of any type known by a person skilled in the art such as hydrothermal sealing, hot sealing with hexavalent chromium salts or with nickel salts, etc. ([0029]).
Warburg teaches sealing a component made of aluminum and/or an aluminum alloy ([0001]). Warburg and Bares are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with sealing methods for aluminum and aluminum alloys.
Warburg teaches a method for sealing treatment of aluminum or aluminum alloy components with high sealing treatment quality resulting in good corrosion resistance ([0008]). Warburg further teaches the sealing treatment substitutes the usually employed hot water sealing treatment, reduces processing time, which increases plant capacity and reduces cost for each manufactured piece ([0008]-[0009]).
Warburg teaches wherein a compound of one or several alkali silicates is added to the hot water sealing treatment bath, preferably sodium silicate and/or potassium silicate, particularly preferred as an aqueous solution with a concentration of 8 to 16 grams silicate per liter of fully desalinated water (claim 7, alkali silicates read on claimed alkali metal silicates; sodium silicate and/or potassium silicate reads on claimed sodium silicate, potassium silicate; one of ordinary skill in the art understands desalinated water and deionized water as interchangeable since they are both purified waters used in metallurgical processes). Warburg teaches the hot water sealing treatment is performed at pH values of 10 to 11, preferably at pH values of 10.4 to 10.8 (claim 8, pH overlaps with claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the water sealing step of Bares with the sealing treatment of Warburg using sodium silicate and/or potassium silicate with a concentration of 8-16 g/L and a solution pH of 10-11 to obtain an aluminum part with good corrosion resistance, reduce processing time, increase plant capacity and reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Warburg.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitation B) a sealing step carried out in an aqueous solution at a pH of between 9 and 12 of deionized water having a conductivity between 1 and 100 μS/cm containing between 1 and 500 g/L of an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal silicate selected from the group consisting of lithium silicate, sodium silicate, potassium silicate, calcium silicate, and magnesium silicate of claim 1
Modified Bares therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bares teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Bares teaches a method for anodizing a part made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Abstract, reads on claimed anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy).
Bares teaches examples anodizing parts in rolled aluminum alloy 2024 T3 ([0045], aluminum alloy 2024 T3 reads on the claimed wherein the aluminum alloy is an aluminum alloy of the 2xxx series and the claimed 2024 alloy series).
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitation wherein the aluminum alloy is an aluminum alloy of the 2xxx, 6xxx and 7xxx series, in particular selected from the group consisting of 2014, 2017, 2024, 2214, 2219, 2618, AU5NKZr, 7175, 5052, 5086, 6061, 6063, 7010, 7020, 7050, 7050 T7451, 7055, 7068, 7085, 7075, 7175 and 7475, aluminum foundry alloys type AS7G06, AS7G03, AS10G and AS9U3, aluminum alloys resulting from methods such as additive manufacturing of claim 2.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Bares teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Bares teaches an example where the parts treated by the method are submitted to a sealing process including an immersion of the aluminum part in an aqueous bath of composition: CrF3: 6 g/L and K2ZrF6: 1 g/L, in water ([0075]-[0076], Example 1, the CrF3 and K2ZrF6 concentrations are within the claimed ranges). Bares further teaches the concentration of trivalent chromium salt in the bath is preferably between 0.5 and 50 g/L ([0040], range is within the claimed range of claim 4). Bares further teaches the concentration of oxidizing compound K2ZrF6 in the bath may notably be between 0.1 and 50 g/L ([32], range overlaps with the claimed range of claim 3). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitations the hexafluorozirconate salt concentration is between 0.5 and 50 g/L of claim 3 and the concentration of trivalent chromium salt is between 0.1 and 50 g/L of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bares teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Since the use of deionized water is well known in the art and the conductivity of deionized water is listed by standards as 0.5-3 μS/cm, as discussed in claim 1 above, modified Bares reads on the claimed wherein the sealing of the step B) is carried out in an aqueous deionized water solution having a conductivity between 1 and 100 μS/cm of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, modified Bares teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Warburg teaches the hot water sealing treatment is performed at pH values of 10 to 11, preferably at pH values of 10.4 to 10.8 (claim 8, pH overlaps with claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitation wherein the sealing step is carried out in an aqueous solution in which the pH is between 10.5 and 11.4 of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Bares teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Bares teaches a method for anodizing a part made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Abstract, reads on claimed anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy). Since the broad disclosure of Bares teaches a method that applies to an anodized aluminum or aluminum alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the method of Bares to any of the claimed aluminum alloys with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Bares therefore reads on the limitation wherein the aluminum alloy is selected from the group consisting of 2618A and 2214 of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (1) Bares describes only sealing solutions with a pH between 5.5 and 6.5; (2) Runge similarly notes that sealing baths are typically mildly acidic solutions with a pH of 5.5 to 6; and (3) in view of this, there is no reason to modify the mildly acidic solution of Bares to instead by highly basic (remarks, page 7).
In response, Bares teaches the step of sealing the porous anodic layer may be of any type known by a person skilled in the art ([0029]). Bares teaches the sealing step has a pH for example between 4.5 and 8 ([0030], emphasis added). Examples and preferred embodiments are not evidence of teaching away when acceptable broader ranges are taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2123(II). In other words, Bares' invention is not limited in scope to the specific example pH ranges. In this case, Bares teaches an example pH of 8 which is a basic solution and therefore is not limited to mildly acidic solutions, as argued by Applicant. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the pH of Bares with the sealing solution of Warburg, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 in this Office action.
Applicant argues that in contrast to Claim 16, Bares describes a process implemented with standard 2014 aluminum alloy and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no apparent reason in Bares treatment of standard 2014 aluminum to expect that the differences highlighted in the above proposed amendments would allow for successful anodization and sealing of "difficult" aluminum alloys 2618A and 2214 (remarks, page 8).
In response, examples and preferred embodiments are not evidence of teaching away when acceptable broader ranges are taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2123(II). In other words, Bares' invention is not limited in scope to the specific aluminum alloy of 2024 T3 uses in at least Example 1 of Bares ([0045]). In this case, Bares teaches a method for anodizing an aluminum or aluminum alloy part (claim 1) which encompasses any aluminum or aluminum alloy part absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As the Patent Office does not possess the laboratory facilities to test any differences in the claimed invention versus that of the reference, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 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, 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733