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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 6, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment filed August 6, 2025, with the RCE submission, has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4-5 are canceled, claims 12-21 are withdrawn, and claims 1-3, 6-11 and 22 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 26, 2024.
Claims 12-13 are directed to a non-elected invention and claims 14-21 are directed to non-elected species.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure because at page 1 of the specification, line 6, it should be clarified that 17/290,005 is now abandoned. is withdrawn due to the amendment of January 13, 2025 making this correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Due to the amendment to claim 1, it is now confusing and indefinite in claim 3 as to what “an anhydrous alloy metal salt” at line 2 is referred to. Claim 1 now has the electroless Al solution “consisting of the mixture . . . optionally the anhydrous alloy metal salt”. Claim 3 refers at line 2 refers to “an anhydrous alloy metal salt” so it is unclear if the same “anhydrous alloy metal salt” in claim 1 is referred to or an additional anhydrous alloy metal salt. Since the “consisting of” language is used in claim 1, it is understood, for the purpose of examination, that the anhydrous alloy metal salt is claim 1 is referred to in claim 3, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 22, line 11, “the anhydrous alloy metal salt” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, due to the optional presence of the alloy metal salt, at lines 14-16, “aluminum plated” should apparently be “aluminum or aluminum alloy plated”. For the purpose of examination, the claim has been treated as having this provision, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al (US 9803283) in view of Angell, et al “High Coulombic efficiency aluminum-ion battery using an AlCl3-urea ionic liquid analog electrolyte” (hereinafter Angell article), Abood, et al “Morphology of Electrodeposited Aluminum Metal from Aluminum Chloride-Urea Room Temperature Ionic Liquid (RTIL) at Variable Parameters” (hereinafter Abood article) and Japan 2018-123261 (hereinafter ‘261), EITHER alone OR further in view of the admitted state of the prior art (hereinafter APA).
Claim 1: Martin teaches a method of electroless deposition of aluminum on substrate surface (abstract), where the process includes activating the surface of the substrate to be coated by applying a coating of a catalyst metal (figure 1, column 5, lines 20-50), preparing an ionic liquid mixture with aluminum chloride and an ionic liquid material (figure 1, column 5, lines 50-68, column 10, lines 45-50), dissolving a hydride reducing agent in an aprotic anhydrous solvent (note toluene) to obtain a hydride solution (figure 1, since hydride in toluene understood to be dissolved, note column 6, lines 10-20, column 10, lines 45-51), mixing the hydride solution and the ionic liquid mixture to obtain an electroless Al solution (note figure 1, column 10, lines 45-51), exposing the activated surface of the substrate to the electroless Al solution and removing the electroless Al solution from the substrate surface, where upon exposure to the activated surface substrate to the electroless Al solution an Al or Al alloy coating is obtained on the activated substrate surface (note figure 1, column 10, lines 50-68, column 7 line 50 to column 8, line 65). As to the hydride reducing agent of lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), this would be taught by Martin (note column 6, lines 4-10), so LiAlH4 would be used, and the hydride solution would include LiAlH4 solution. As to the electroless Al solution consisting of ionic liquid, LiAlH4, aprotic anhydrous solvent and optionally the anhydrous alloy metal salt (which has been added to the ionic liquid), as noted above the electroless Al solution in Martin can be made with ionic liquid mixture, LiAlH4 (as the reducing agent), aprotic anhydrous solvent (toluene, provided with the reducing agent). According to Martin, the only other required material of the electroless plating solution is an additive that can be an alloying element (note figure 1, column 2, lines 25-35, column 7, lines 45-50), where Martin further indicates that the alloying element as an anhydrous alloy metal salt can be added to the ionic liquid (the formed aluminum ionic liquid, and so resultingly be in the Al electroless solution), where the metal salt can be a halide salt of Zn, Cr, Fe, Ni, Sn, Pb, Cu, Ag, Au and combinations thereof (the materials claimed by present claim 1) (note column 4, lines 55-65, column 5, lines 50-55, column 6, lines 45-50, column 7, lines 5-25). As to adding the metal salt as a solution to the ionic liquid, before mixing with the LiHlH4 solution, Martin notes how the reducing agent and additive are added to the formed aluminum ionic liquid (column 4, lines 55-65), and so would be inclusive of being added together or separately, and where the reducing agent shown as being provided in aprotic solvent of toluene (column 10, lines 45-51), and therefore it would be understood that the alloy metal salt would also be acceptably provided with an expectation of predictably acceptable results in the aprotic solvent of toluene along with the reducing agent or simply with the toluene, which would be understood to include to provide for dissolving the salt in the solvent and then adding the solution with the solvent (and optionally reducing agent) to the ionic liquid. Note In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
(A) Martin does not specifically provide that the ionic liquid is made by mixing urea with the anhydrous aluminum chloride in a molar ratio of AlCl3:urea of 2:1 to obtain a Lewis acid RTIL comprising Al2Cl7- ions, but does note that a variety of ionic liquids can be used and notes an example of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (EMIC) at a 2:1 molar ratio (of AlCl3:EMIC) (note column 5, lines 50-68, abstract).
Furthermore, Angell article notes that it is known to make ionic liquids with a mix of AlCl3 and EMIC, which are relatively expensive, such that Al2Cl7- was present in the liquid, and where it is indicated that room for improvement exists (note page 834, second column). Angell article further provides that a cheap ionic liquid can be provided using a mix of AlCl3 and urea (note abstract, pages 834-835), where it is described to provide an AlCl3:urea molar ratio of 1.3:1, for example or where testing was also performed with excess AlCl3, giving AlCl3:urea ratios of 1.1:1, 1.3:1. 1.4:1. 1.5:1 ratios (abstract, page 835, pages 836-837). It is indicated that such mixtures would comprise Al2Cl7- and [AlCl2-(urea)n]+ ions (where n=2, for example) (note abstract, page 837). It is indicated that mixing can be provided to keep temperatures below 40 degrees C during mixing (which would include room temperature range) (note page 835). While n=2 example is provided (page 837), it is also generally taught to provide [AlCl2- (urea)n+] ions (note abstract, page 838), which would allow for n having other values.
Additionally, Abood article describes how room temperature ionic liquids (RTIL) can be provided using an aluminum chloride/urea combination (note abstract, page 753, 759), where such liquids can be provided by adding urea (simple amide) to anhydrous aluminum chloride (AlCl3) formed [AlCl2-nAmide]+ +AlCl4-, where it can be provided in a range of between 1:1-2:1 AlCl3:Urea mole ratio (note page 754), where no limit as given as to “n” value. Examples are provided, including with 2:1 mole ratio, where it is indicated that at 2:1 mole ratio, Al2Cl-7 would be present, where this is the reducible species by which Al will be deposited (page 754). (This appears, therefore, to describe the reaction shown in figure 3 of applicant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to provide the ionic liquid by mixing AlCl3 (so anhydrous aluminum chloride) with urea at a molar ratio of 2:1 (AlCl3:urea), for example, in the claimed range, providing a Lewis acid room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) comprising Al2Cl7- ions, as suggested by Angell article and Abood article with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable and desirably cheaper ionic liquid, since Martin indicates providing an ionic liquid with AlCl3, including using for example, EMIC, and Angell article teaches a mixture of AlCl3 and urea can be used to provide an AlCl3 containing ionic liquid that can be provided at a molar ratio of 1.3:1 (AlCl3:urea) and be cheaper than using EMIC, where this liquid would comprise Al2Cl7- ions (and the liquid using EMIC would also have AlCl7- ions), and thus giving the materials of a liquid described as a Lewis acid RTIL as claimed, and Angell article indicates that similar ions Al2Cl7-, etc. can be provided using additional AlCl3 over a 1:1 ratio, noting tests at 1.1:1, 1.2:1, 1.3:1, 1.4:1, 1.5:1 (note pages 836-837), and thus it would be suggested that amounts over 1.3:1 can be used with similar results, where additionally, Abood article similarly describes that a RTIL can be provided by mixing anhydrous AlC3 with urea at a molar ratio of 1:1-2:1, including with examples at 2:1, where the 2:1 ratio forms a liquid with Al2Cl7- ions, where Al2Cl7- acts as a reducible species from which Al deposited, and it would have been obvious to optimize from the potential ranges given of the molar ratio to get the best results, giving a 2:1 AlCl3:urea molar ratio as claimed. Furthermore, the combination of Martin, Angell article and Abood article would provide mixing this AlCl3-urea RTIL with anhydrous alloy metal salt solution with an LiAlH4 solution, from the teaching in Martin of using LiAlH4 solution and anhydrous alloy metal salt as discussed above, and thereafter depositing the Al or Al alloy by the steps claimed, and therefore, since the same materials would be used as claimed, depositing of the Al or Al alloy by the reduction of the Al2Cl7- ions and by decomposition of the LiAlH4 as claimed is understood to occur. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When using the AlCl3-urea RTIL as suggested by Angell article and Abood article as the ionic liquid, the electroless Al solution used would therefore predictably and acceptably consist of the mixture of urea and AlCl3 (as the ionic liquid), LiHlH4, aprotic anhydrous solvent (toluene) and the anhydrous alloy metal salt (as these would be the only materials required), Thus, all the features of claim 1 are suggested by the combination of references.
(B) Optionally, further using APA, as to specifically using a AlCl3:urea ratio of 2:1, APA (note specification as filed at page 9) further indicates that an ionic liquid from AlCl3 and Urea results in the formation of Al2Cl7- ions when used with 2:1 molar ratio or greater of AlCl3 and Urea, respectively, and that this ionic compound was originally created as an electrolyte for batteries due to its high conductivity (Angell et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017, 114(5), 834-839) – which referred to Angell article is that used in the present rejection.
Therefore, APA would further evidence that Angell article would include the formation of 2:1 molar ratio or greater of AlCl3 and Urea, and giving a further range including 2:1 that it would have been obvious to optimize from, giving a value in the claimed range.
(C) as to the catalyst being an applied coating of Pd-Sn nanoparticles, Martin notes applying a catalyst, where the catalyst can be palladium, where a colloidal suspension of palladium particles can be deposited as palladium particles on the substrate, giving a coating of Pd particles, but the application method is not limited to this (note column 5, lines 20-50).
‘261 notes providing catalyst application before electroless plating, where the catalyst application can be to provide Pd (palladium) deposition, where known catalyst application method is suggested, such as by adsorbing (coating) nanometer sized Pd-Sn colloidal particles (nanoparticles) to the substrate using a catalyst application method followed by treatment to elute Sn (such as with sulfuric acid) to expose Pd to act as a catalyst (note page 5, translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin in view of Angell article and Abood article, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to provide the application of the Pd catalyst using application of a coating of Pd-Sn nanoparticles as suggested by ‘261 with a predictable expectation of success, since Martin indicates applying Pd catalyst which can come from a colloidal suspension, and ‘261 teaches that a known acceptable way to provide Pd catalyst for plating is to apply a coating of Pd-Sn colloidal particles (nanoparticles) as part of the process for providing the Pd catalyst.
Claim 2: As to the aprotic anhydrous solvent, Martin teaches toluene (note column 10, lines 45-51).
Claim 3: Martin indicates that an anhydrous alloy metal salt can be added to the RTIL (the formed aluminum ionic liquid), where the metal salt can be a halide salt of Zn, Cr, Fe, Ni, Sn, Pb, Cu, Ag, Au and combinations thereof (note column 4, lines 55-65, column 5, lines 50-55, column 6, lines 45-50, column 7, lines 5-25). Martin notes how the reducing agent and additive are added to the RTIL (the formed aluminum ionic liquid) (column 4, lines 55-65), and so would be inclusive of being added together or separately, and where the reducing agent shown as being provided in aprotic solvent of toluene (column 10, lines 45-51), and therefore it would be understood that the alloy metal salt would also be acceptably provided with an expectation of predictably acceptable results in the aprotic solvent of toluene along with the reducing agent or simply with the toluene, which would be understood to include to provide for dissolving the salt in the solvent and then adding the solution with the solvent (and optionally reducing agent) to the RTIL. Note In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article and ‘261, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Shipley (US 3011920).
Claim 6: As to the activation process for the substrate, Martin teaches that the substrate can be activated with a colloidal palladium solution to deposit palladium particles on the substrate surface (note column 10, lines 35-45, column 5, lines 35-50). ’261 teaches, as discussed for claim 1, to deposit Pd-Sn colloidal particles (nanoparticles) as part of providing Pd for catalyst, where the deposited particles can be treated with acid material (dilute sulfuric acid) to expose Pd to act as catalyst (page 5, translation).
Shipley further describes catalyzing a surface for electroless plating using colloidal particles of catalytic material (note column 1, lines 10-20, column 2, lines 20-30), where a desirable colloidal solution for use can be made using PdCl2 and SnCl2 in the presence of HCl and water, forming colloidal palladium in the solution (and as well with protective stannic acid colloids, etc.) (so understood to give Pd-Sn nanoparticles, since colloids which would include nanoparticle size, noting the teaching of ‘261 as to colloids as nanoparticles as well), and this is used to treat the surface of the substrate with this solution to cover the surface with a layer of adsorbed catalytic Pd-Sn nanoparticles (note column 2, line 55 through column 3, line 45, column 6, lines 1-15 and 35-50), and further, although not specifically listed, is understood that the nanoparticles would also comprise stannous hydroxide from the stannic acid covered on their surface, as the same materials are used. The substrate is further cleaned (rinsed), which would be understood to remove residues of the solution (column 6, lines 5-10). The substrate is further placed in an acidic accelerator solution to remove the tin material (which would be understood to include the stannous hydroxide) from the surface of the substrate and which would also be from the surface of the particles, which would thereby increase catalytic activity of the Pd as now exposed (note column 5, lines 25-45, column 6, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article and ‘261, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to provide the surface activation with Pd-Sn colloidal solution, cleaning, and accelerating as discussed above as suggested by Shipley to provide a predictably acceptable catalyzation before electroless plating since Martin teaches to catalyze the surface with Pd using a colloidal solution, ‘261 notes how Pd-Sn colloids (nanoparticles) can be used to provide Pd for catalyst, and Shipley provides a desirable catalyzation using a Pd based colloidal solution before electroless plating which provides the claimed steps of claim 10 as discussed above.
Claim 7: As to the substrate being non-reactive to Al deposition and/or non-conductive, Martin teaches that the substrate can be ceramic or a polymer, for example (column 1 lines 1-10), understood to at least include being non-conductive, especially as to how use of catalyst taught for plating (note column 5, lines 25-50).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article, ‘261 and Shipley, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of CN 101210319 (hereinafter ‘319).
Claims 7-10, as to the substrate being non-reactive to Al deposition and/or non-conductive, a nanostructure, a nanotube, and specifically a carbon nanotube, Martin teaches a variety of substrates can be used that can withstand submersion in ionic liquid, with examples of glass, metal, polymer, ceramic, etc. and can be a variety of shapes (note column 4, line 65 through column 5, line 10), but does not specifically note carbon nanotubes.
However, ‘319 teaches the desire to electrolessly plate aluminum onto a variety of substrates, including glass, plastic, and carbon nanotubes (note 0007, 0061), and describes solutions with aluminum salts, what would be ionic liquid materials and reducing agents of hydrides (note 0021-0026, 0036).
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article. ‘261 and Shipley, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to use a carbon nanotube substrate as suggested by ‘319 with an expectation of providing a desirably aluminum plated carbon nanotube, since Martin indicates providing a variety of substrates including glass and polymer, and ‘319 teaches that aluminum can be electrolessly plated on such substrates and also carbon nanotubes using a similar aluminum salt, ionic liquid and hydride reducing agent solution.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article, ‘261, Shipley and ‘319, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claim 7-10 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 2013/0243974).
Claim 11: Furthermore, as to the carbon nanotube (as used in claim 10), also being a single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) or multi wall carbon nanotube (MWCNT), for example, ‘319 would suggest plating the aluminum on carbon nanotubes as discussed above.
Furthermore, Jung describes how it can be desired to provide electroless metal plating on a catalyst activated SWCNTs or MWCNTs (note 0008, 0011-0015).
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article, ‘261, Shipley and ‘319, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to aluminum plate carbon nanotubes in the form of SWCNTs or MWCNTs as suggested by Jung with an expectation of providing a desirably plated carbon nanotube, since Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article, ‘261, Shipley and ‘319, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA would indicate catalyst activating and aluminum electroless plating carbon nanotubes, and Jung would indicate types of carbon nanotubes desired to be plated include SWCNTs and MWCNTs.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article and ‘261, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Sheasby et al (US 4152222).
Claim 22: Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article and ‘261, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA provides the activating the surface of the substrate by applying a coating of Pd-Sn nanoparticles, the preparing a mixture, dissolving a hydride reducing agent of LiAlH4, mixing the LiAlH4 solution, exposing the activated surface, and removing the electroless Al solution steps, including providing the electroless Al solution consisting of the mixture of urea, anhydrous AlCl3, LiAlH4, aprotic anhydrous solvent, and anhydrous alloy metal salt of the metals listed, as claimed in claim 22, as detailed for claim 1 above. As to the further anodizing steps, Martin notes that the deposited aluminum layer can be further anodized (column 10, lines 20-25), but does not detail the process.
Sheasby describes how anodized aluminum can be provided and desirably colored (note abstract), where anodizing is provided by submerging the surface with aluminum in an electrolytic solution and applying a direct current to the aluminum to form an aluminum oxide coating comprising a barrier layer (note column 6, lines 30-45, column 5, lines 20-30, column 1, lines 45-60, note with the anodizing under direct current, the current is understood to form an anode current with the aluminum, and since in the solution, understood to be submerged for the anodizing, and a barrier layer described as formed, note column 1, line 65 through column 2, line 15, column 3, lines 35-40), and Sheasby further indicates to treat the aluminum oxide coating comprising a barrier layer to form pores in the aluminum oxide coat structure, to allow pigment deposition for new color shades (column 4, lines 15-65, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin in view of Angell article, Abood article and ‘261, EITHER alone OR further in view of APA to provide anodization treatment as discussed for Sheasby above to allow for desirable anodization and further colorizing, since Martin indicates further anodizing of the aluminum layer is provided, and Sheasby describes as discussed above, how desirable anodization of aluminum can be provided, and allow for further coloring, giving all the steps claimed for claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the new 35 USC 112 rejections due to the amendment to the claims.
It is argued that the primary reference to Martin discloses an electroless plating composition comprising a catalyst of TiCl2, etc. where with the present claims having the “consisting of” language as to the electroless Al solution, the catalyst of Matin is excluded and from the alloy metals presently claimed, the Martin catalyst cannot be equated to a recited alloy metal.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. While Martin discloses that a catalyst outside the claimed list of materials can be present in the electroless plating composition, the presence of the catalyst is optional, and an alloying element (equating to the claimed allowed to be present anhydrous alloy metal salt) can be provided instead. Note Martin at column 2, lines 25-35, where the plating composition has an additive “wherein the additive may be one selected from the group consisting of a catalyst, an alloying element, and a combination thereof”, and at column 7, lines 45-50, “in one embodiment, the additive is the catalyst. In another embodiment, the additive is the one or more alloying elements.” Thus, the additive can be simply the alloying element. Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the alloying element can be an anhydrous alloy metal salt, where the metal salt can be a halide salt of Zn, Cr, Fe, Ni, Sn, Pb, Cu, Ag, Au and combinations thereof (the materials claimed by present claim 1) (note column 4, lines 55-65, column 5, lines 50-55, column 6, lines 45-50, column 7, lines 5-25). As discussed in the rejection above, the electroless Al plating solution used from the combination of the elements can be consisting of the listed materials claimed. Note that while Martin lists the use of the catalyst in claim 1 of Martin, as discussed above, the body of the specification of Martin indicates that the anhydrous alloy salt as claimed can be used instead. Note MPEP 2123, “Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718