DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to claim 10 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112b is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other previous grounds of rejection stand.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 December 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office action on 29 September 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al. (US 2020/0080219), in view of Tseng et al. (“Depolarized haze of nano-porous AAO film via porosity and aspect control”, Optical Materials, 2018) and in further view of Li et al. (CN 110565095).
Regarding claim 10, Curran discloses a method of forming corrosion resistant anodized parts (abstract) including an enclosure for a portable electronic device [0008] (= a method for machining an aluminum exterior material), the method comprising:
Forming a protruding feature on an aluminum alloy substrate by machining (step 802), [0079] (= machining an aluminum alloy into a designated shape); and
anodizing the machined aluminum alloy, wherein the anodizing comprises:
forming a first oxide layer using a first anodizing process (step 806) (504, Figure 5B) [0044], [0080] (= performing, based on the machined aluminum alloy, a first anodizing process using a first voltage to form a first film layer on the machined aluminum alloy); and
forming a second oxide layer using a second anodizing process (step 808) (508, Figure 5B) [0081] (= a second anodizing process uses a second voltage to form a second film layer on the machined aluminum alloy after performing the first anodizing process), and
the second oxide layer (508) is positioned between the first oxide layer (504) and the substrate (502) (Figure 5B) (= wherein the second film layer is positioned between the first film layer and the machined aluminum alloy) and
a time for applying the second voltage including 7-14 minutes [0089]. The second voltage duration does not overlap the claimed range, however, the process of anodization is a surface treatment process that produces a thickness of an anodization layer based in part on the time period of anodization (see Curran [0036]). The longer duration of the anodization process, the thicker the anodization layer. Therefore the selection of the anodization duration would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to produce a thickness.
Curran discloses a first voltage including 18-22 volts which overlaps the claimed range of 10-30 volts [0101]. Curran discloses a second voltage including 6-10 volts which overlaps the claimed range of 1-10 volts [0050] (MPEP § 2144.05 I). Curran discloses a second voltage being lower than a first voltage [0028], [0060].
Regarding the claimed “a surface change on the surface of the aluminum alloy occurs” is necessarily present since anodization is a surface treatment process that changes a surface.
Curran does not disclose wherein a haze effect occurs on the machine aluminum alloy and an intensity of the haze effect is determined by the magnitude of the first voltage and is silent in regards to a grain boundary.
Tseng discloses a method of treating an aluminum material (abstract, page 851, 2 Experiment) including a two-step anodization that adjusts the applied voltage and duration of anodization to control the structure of the anodized film including its porosity to thereby produce a haze effect (Figures 3 and 7). Tseng discloses that the porosity of AAO surface broadens when increasing the bias voltage (abstract). Tseng also discloses that it is known in the art that the reduced reflectance is observed with an increase in anodization time and a widened pore (page 851, left column, first paragraph). Tseng discloses varying the voltage and duration (Figure 3) which results in a change in reflectance (Figure 4) and Haze ratio (Figure 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising developing a haze effect because Tseng discloses in the similar field of anodizing, controlling the applied anodization voltage and time to tune the haze for various applications (page 857, left column). Regarding the “an intensity of the haze effect is determined by the magnitude of the first voltage”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust either the first or second voltage amplitude to adjust the haze.
Curran discloses producing a textured surface by etching for example and subsequently anodizing [0079]-[0080]. Curran and Tseng are silent in regards to the claimed grain boundary.
In the same or similar field of anodizing, Li discloses that textured blocks of aluminum alloy include grains [0009]. Li discloses that the aluminum alloy grains may be large in size and visible to the naked eye [0010]. Li discloses that the control of the textured surface controls the sizing of the grain structure [0012]. Li discloses subsequently anodizing the textured surface to obtain a visual effect [0102].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the textured surface of Curran would be inclusive of grain boundaries because Tseng discloses in the same field of anodizing, that a textured surface characteristics are controlled in order to control the appearance of the grain boundaries with subsequent anodization. Regarding the claimed “wherein the time for applying the second voltage is selected”, Li discloses that the grain boundaries are visible with anodization and thus a time period is present. Further, the claimed “a distinction between the grain boundary and grains becomes visible when the haze effect starts based on a diffused reflection of light from the surface of the aluminum alloy” does not appear to further limit the claimed method. The phrasing does not include any additional method steps or materials different than the combination above. Moreover, visibility is a subjective term. For example, is the visibility required by the naked eye, microscope, etc. Additionally, the instant claim appears to recite a resulting effect of the claimed process in relation to light. The instant claim does not provide any guidance as to the light source, etc.
Regarding claim 11, Curran discloses polishing the machined aluminum alloy [0080].
Regarding claim 12, Curran discloses post-anodizing processes including buffering/polishing [0067].
Regarding claim 14, Curran discloses wherein the first oxide layer comprises film pores (505) [0047] (Figure 5A).
Regarding claim 15, Curran discloses wherein anodization is a surface conversion process wherein a thickness of the film is determined by a time of applying a voltage [0036]. The longer the duration of anodizing, the thicker the film. This principle is also an intrinsic principle of anodization.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al. (US 2020/0080219), in view of Tseng et al. (“Depolarized haze of nano-porous AAO film via porosity and aspect control”, Optical Materials, 2018), in view of Li et al. (CN 110565095) and in further view of Yan (US 2004/0050710).
Regarding claim 13, Curran discloses wherein the method comprises dyeing, sealing, buffering, polishing [0067], [0080]-[0082]. The claimed preprocessing does not particularly require a specific sequence and any one of the anodizing or post anodizing steps read on the claimed preprocessing.
Curran in view of Tseng and Li does not explicitly disclose an eluting step.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Yan discloses anodizing an aluminum substrate, dyeing and sealing (abstract). Yan discloses that any excess ink or dye may be removed with solvent cleaning (= eluting) [0019].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising eluting because Yan discloses that excess material such as dye can be removed through solvent cleaning. It would have been obvious to elute the surface of Curran in order to clean the treated surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered. On pages 9-10 of the response, the argument states that the combination of prior art does not disclose the claimed first voltage, second voltage and a time as claimed and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis.
As stated above, Curran discloses a first voltage including 18-22 volts which overlaps the claimed range of 10-30 volts [0101]. Curran discloses a second voltage including 6-10 volts which overlaps the claimed range of 1-10 volts [0050] (MPEP § 2144.05 I). Curran discloses a second voltage being lower than a first voltage [0028], [0060]. A time for applying the second voltage including 7-14 minutes (Curran, [0089]). The second voltage duration does not overlap the claimed range, however, the process of anodization is a surface treatment process that produces a thickness of an anodization layer based in part of the time period of anodization (see Curran [0036]). The longer the anodization process, the thicker the anodization layer. Therefore the selection of the anodization duration would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to produce a thickness. Regarding the claimed “a surface change on the surface of the aluminum alloy occurs” is necessarily present since anodization is a surface treatment process that changes or converts a surface. The cited reference Li is cited for describing the grain structure as applied to at least claim 1 as stated above. Li discloses that the aluminum alloy grains may be large in size and visible to the naked eye [0010]. Li discloses that the control of the textured surface controls the sizing of the grain structure [0012]. Li discloses subsequently anodizing the textured surface to obtain a visual effect [0102].
Moreover, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because Curran, Tseng and Li teach similar method steps as presently claimed (i.e. two step anodizing, grain boundaries, haze effect). Similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which have the same properties. In re Spada; In re DeBlauwe; In re Wiegand
When applicants claim a process in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the process of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, Applicants should point out the manufacturing process act or operation that is recited in the claims that would be expected to impart the distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. It does not appear that an anodizing voltage range and/or an anodizing time impart any distinction from the combination of the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795