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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-21 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 18 have been amended. Claims 7 and 9 have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and 14-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Patel (US 5674371 A).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 13 and 18-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. See response to arguments below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
"A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format."
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention."). See MPEP 2111.03 III.
In view of Applicant’s arguments, the interpretation of “consisting essentially of” will be interpreted as excluding carcinogenic metal salts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 105386111 B, machine translation) in view of Sheasby et al. (US 4066816 A).
Considering claims 1, 13, 18 and 20, Guo discloses a method of manufacturing a coating on the surface of an aluminum alloy or aluminum alloys product comprising anodizing and electrochemical dyeing with use of alternating current (page 1, last 2 paragraphs), wherein, the electrolyte used during electrochemical dyeing comprises copper (II) sulfate (VI) in an amount of 12 g/L (page 2, 8th paragraph), boric acid in the amount of 40 g/L and complexing agent in the amount of 4 g/L (page 2, 8th paragraph), the complexing agent is a polyhydroxy organic acid, such as tartaric acid (page 2, paragraphs 8th-11th), wherein before starting anodizing the surface of the aluminum products is degreased (cleaning) and etched (page 3, 1st paragraph and page 4, 3rd paragraph), transferred to a dyeing bath (page 3, 4th paragraph), wherein the time of dyeing is 3-10 min, however it can be varied from 1 to 20 min (page 4, 1st paragraph), which overlaps the claimed range of no longer than 160 seconds, and wherein the product is sealed after dyeing (closed) (page 3, 5th paragraph).
Guo does not disclose after anodizing the product is rinsed in deionized water and dried after dyeing.
Gue does not disclose the coating is interference coating and the anodization current density.
However, Sheasby teaches electrolytic coloring of anodized aluminum by means of optical interference effects, where inorganic pigment from metallic salt solutions, particularly nickel, cobalt, tin and copper salts and mixtures is formed by electrolytically deposition (abstract). The pigment is then deposited in the pores to the specified depth and interesting new color shades are obtained as a result of optical interference due to the presence of the large size shallow inorganic pigment deposits (abstract). Sheasby also discloses the anodization current density for making an anodized layer of a thickness suitable for interference effect is 1.5 A/dm2 (col. 6, lines 29-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rinse with deionized water after anodizing, because after anodizing the product is transferred from anodizing bath to phosphoric acid bath therefore it would be obvious to rinse with deionized water in order avoid contamination of the phosphoric acid bath if transferred without rinsing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposited the inorganic pigment of Guo to form an interference effect, because Sheasby teaches the interference effects can be formed in the anodized aluminum layer by depositing the inorganic pigment in the pores the specified depth and interesting new color shades are obtained as a result of optical interference due to the presence of the large size shallow inorganic pigment deposits. Sheasby also discloses current density of 1.5 A/dm2 for achieving anodized layer with a thickness for interference coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 3, Guo discloses electrolytic coloring (step 4) time is longer than 10 seconds (page 4, 1st paragraph).
Considering claim 4, Guo discloses electrolytic coloring temperature is 15-25 °C (page 2, 7th paragraph).
Considering claim 5, Guo discloses dyeing is conducted with use of alternating current having voltage in range 8-16 V (page 2, 3rd and 7th paragraphs).
Considering claim 6, Guo discloses anodizing (step 2) is conducted in the solution of sulfuric acid (VI) having concentration of 150 - 200 g/L with the addition of aluminum ions in the amount of 5 - 20 g/L (page 2, 5th paragraph).
Considering claim 7, Guo discloses anodizing is conducted at a current density of 0.1-5 A/dm2.
Considering claim 8, Guo discloses anodizing is conducted for 15-40 min (900-2400 seconds) (page 2, 5th paragraph).
Considering claim 19, Guo discloses using a degreasing and etching the aluminum product comprises placing the aluminum product in acidic water bath and alkaline water bath respectively (page 4, 3rd paragraph).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. and Sheasby et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinez (GB 1406591 A).
Considering claim 2, Guo is silent about stirring the electrolyte during dying.
However, Martinez discloses stirring during electrolytic dying of anodized aluminum (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continuously stir the electrolyte during electrolytic coloring step of the method of Guo, because it is known to stir electrolytes during reactions in order to even out concentration of components, which change continuously at the electrode surface as exemplified in the reference of Martinez.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. and Sheasby et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaito et al. (JP 2013253317 A, machine translation).
Considering claims 10 and 11, Guo is silent as to the method of sealing.
However, Kaito teaches that sealing can be done by various methods including, for example, PVD such as vacuum evaporation, sputtering, ion plating, plasma polymerization, and atomic layer deposition (ALD) (page 23, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ALD sealing in the method of Guo, Guo only generally discloses sealing performed after electrolytic coloring, and Kaito teaches that many sealing techniques are available, such as PVD and ALD. Therefore, one would have known to use a method taught by Kaito to seal the colored anodized layer of Guo.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. and Sheasby et al., as applied to claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Tegiacchi et al. (GB 2112814 A).
Considering claim 21, Guo does not disclose the electrochemical dyeing comprises using a stainless-steel counter electrode having a surface area greater than or equal to a surface area of the aluminum product.
However, Tegiacchi teaches using stainless-steel counter electrode in electrolytic coloring, where it is preferable to select a ratio of the surface area of the steel counter-electrode to that of the aluminium electrode equal at least to 1:1, and preferably higher than this minimum critical ratio in order to minimize the corrosion phenomena on the counter electrode (page 3, lines 49-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a stainless-steel counter electrode having a surface area greater than or equal to a surface area of the aluminum product in the method of Guo, because Tegiacchi teaches to select the a ratio of the surface area of the steel counter-electrode to that of the aluminum electrode equal at least to 1:1, and preferably higher than this minimum critical ratio in order to minimize the corrosion phenomena on the counter electrode.
Claim(s) 1 3, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patel (US 5674371 A) in view of Sheasby et al. (US 4066816 A).
Considering claims 1, 3, 13, 18 and 20, Patel discloses a method of manufacturing a coating on the surface of an aluminum alloy or aluminum alloys product comprising anodizing a surface of the aluminum product at current of 5-25 ASF (0.5-2.5 A/dm2) and electrochemical dyeing with use of alternating current (col. 2, lines 14-31), wherein, the electrolyte used during electrochemical dyeing comprises copper (II) sulfate (VI) in an amount of 5-50 g/L, boric acid in the amount of 1-10 g/L and tartaric acid in the amount of 5-10 g/L (col. 5, lines 15-25), wherein before starting anodizing the surface of the aluminum products is degreased and etched (Col. 2, lines 47-51), transferred to a dyeing bath, wherein the time of dyeing is for example 1 min (col. 5, lines 64-67), which overlaps the claimed range of no longer than 160 seconds, and wherein the product is sealed after dyeing (Col. 6, lines 58-62).
Patel does not disclose after anodizing the product is rinsed in deionized water and dried after dyeing.
Patel does not disclose the coating is interference coating and the anodization current density.
However, Sheasby teaches electrolytic coloring of anodized aluminum by means of optical interference effects, where inorganic pigment from metallic salt solutions, particularly nickel, cobalt, tin and copper salts and mixtures is formed by electrolytically deposition (abstract). The pigment is then deposited in the pores to the specified depth and interesting new color shades are obtained as a result of optical interference due to the presence of the large size shallow inorganic pigment deposits (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rinse with deionized water after anodizing, because after anodizing the product is transferred from anodizing bath to phosphoric acid bath therefore it would be obvious to rinse with deionized water in order avoid contamination of the phosphoric acid bath if transferred without rinsing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposited the inorganic pigment of Patel to form an interference effect, because Sheasby teaches the interference effects can be formed in the anodized aluminum layer by depositing the inorganic pigment in the pores the specified depth and interesting new color shades are obtained as a result of optical interference due to the presence of the large size shallow inorganic pigment deposits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 12 and 14, Patel teaches that the coloring agent in an aqueous electrolyte solution are metals such as nickel, cobalt, silver, copper, selenium, iron, molybdenum and tin, and the salts thereof, such as sulfates, nitrates, phosphates, hydrochlorides, oxalates, acetates and tartrates (col. 4, lines 54-67).
Tin salts, optionally in combination with the sulfates or acetates of copper or nickel, are also desirably employed in the process (col. 5, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exclude nickel acetate (known to be carcinogenic to humans) in the explicit example of Patel, because Patel teaches variously metal coloring agents are conventional, for example tin salts may be used with copper or nickel. Therefore, Patel suggests not using nickel acetate as being merely optional.
Considering claim 15, Patel discloses using a degreasing and etching the aluminum product comprises placing the aluminum product alkaline water bath respectively (col. 7, lines 1-6
Considering claim 16, the aluminum sheet of Patel will have the same or greater surface area as the product, because the product will have the same dimensions as the aluminum sheet.
Considering claim 17, Patel discloses stainless steel counter electrode (col. 12, lines 20-23)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of references would have render the invention of Guo inoperable for its intended purpose, because the invention of Guo “provides kind of method of stable coloring Chinese red”, and interfering coating does not offer a stable and uniform color.
This argument is not persuasive, because the intention of Guo forming a stable uniform coloring refers to uniformity over area where the coloring liquid does not precipitate for a long time (page 2, paragraph 12). The mere interference effect is known to be combined with electrolytically formed colors, as taught by Sheasby. A stability of the electrolyte and formed even color coating will also be advantageous in interference coating, as it will remove the spots of different coloration or shade form the coating.
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 Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights