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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 16 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0240377 A1 (hereinafter “Rubio”).
Regarding claim 1, Rubio teaches an anodic oxidation of aluminum cookware (See abstract). Rubio teaches that a dye is applied with the anodic oxidation (see [0039]- [0053]). Rubio teaches that the metal is immersed in phosphoric acid in order to improve brightness (see [0051]). The treatment of Rubio meets all of the limitations of a lightfastness improver and therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Rubio teaches that the metal is immersed in phosphoric acid in order to improve brightness (see [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Rubio teaches that the metal is immersed in phosphoric acid in order to improve brightness (see [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Rubio teaches a dyeing agent is used in a dyeing bath (see [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claims 7-8, the claims are written as statements of intended use. Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2111.03.
The intended use of the phosphate containing agents as a pretreatment or post treatment does not require any structure or elements to be present, other than what is already required elsewhere.
Regarding claim 9, Rubio teaches a anthraquinone (see [0052]).
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 107236980 A (cited by applicant; hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a composite anodizing coloring treatment for an aluminum alloy (see title, claim 1). Li teaches that the method includes steps of anodizing, coloring, decoloring, second coloring, second decoloring, third coloring, and sealing (claim 1 or SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION). Li teaches that the coloring material includes phosphoric acid and a dye (see SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION or claim 2). The treatment of Li meets all of the limitations of a lightfastness improver and therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches that the coloring material includes phosphoric acid and a dye (see SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION or claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Li envisions that a trisodium phosphate material is used (See Embodiment 3), meeting the limitation of the sodium salt.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches that the coloring material includes phosphoric acid and a dye (see SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION or claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches a chemical polishing treatment including 1.70 g/mL of phosphoric acid (see Embodiment 3). The concentration value falls in the claimed range, anticipating the entire range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the coloring material includes phosphoric acid and a dye (see SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION or claim 2).
Regarding claims 7-8, the claims are written as statements of intended use. Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2111.03.
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches organic dye (see SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION or claim 2).
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) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubio.
Regarding claim 3, Rubio is applied to the claims as stated above in the rejections under 35 USC 102. Rubio does not teach a salt of phosphate. Rubio teaches phosphoric acid. However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). In this case the salt of phosphate (e.g., sodium phosphate claimed) differs from phosphoric acid only in that the cation is Na+ instead of H+. in the process of Rubio, for example, the material is completely dissolved in water (“phosphoric acid bath” at [0051]). The presence of or absence of the sodium ion in the solution is not believed to affect the chemical process of the brightening treatment in Rubio, where the phosphate ion (phosphoric acid) be the same. The simple salt of a phosphate as claimed is considered to be an obvious chemical analog of phosphoric acid. The switch from phosphoric acid to a simple salt of phosphate would have been an obvious matter to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.09.
Regarding claim 5, Rubio does not teach a concentration of phosphate as claimed. Rubio does not specify the concentration.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case the material of Rubio is taught as a brightening agent ([0051]). The skilled artisan would have adjusted the concentration of the phosphoric acid bath describe by Rubio as needed, in order to achieve the function clearly described at the specific step of Rubio. The adjustment of a concentration would have required no more than a routine investigation of the process by the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4668775 A teaches a composition for a dye with good lightfastness, which is made with phosphoric acid (Example 85). US 5334297 A teaches to use phosphoric acid to anodize aluminum, with good lightfastness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759