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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 2 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed subject matter overlaps and are sufficiently related that a thorough search of one species would encompass a search for subject matter of other species without serious burden. As an initial comment, this is not found persuasive because the restriction provided does not identify different species, but rather a restriction between different classes of invention, i.e. method, product, etc. Each group has established different classification within the art and thus evidence as such displaying the required search burden. The burden however is not search alone, bur also “…examination without serious burden…” which includes more than just search, such as interpretation or application of prior art. In the instant case, the electrolyte may be used without increasing voltages over a second time interval as required by in the practicing method of the claim. The electrolyte likewise may be used to anodize parts that are nothing related to vehicle braking systems. Further, the product may be formed using different electrolytes or different deposition methods which results in the same type of oxide layer being disclosed. Applicant has not proffered evidence contrary to the proper interpretation of the instant claims nor provided arguments towards the products being an obvious variant of the method or electrolyte disclosed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 22 February 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. It has been initialed but each reference cross through as such.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant case, claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 and merely restates the limitations found in claim 17
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant case, both claim 7 and claim 20 recite identical subject matter and both are dependent upon instant claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schenk US 2,231,373).
As to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 Schenk discloses an electrolyte composition for eloxation of a component wherein the electrolyte composition (pg. 2 col. 2 lines 4-14) comprises an aqueous solution of the following components:
(A) potassium titanium oxide oxalate (pg. 2 col. 2 lines 4-6 6 kg “TiO(KC2O4)2x2H2O” which results in an amount of 33.3 g/L when placed within the 180 kg water, where 1 kg water = 1 liter water based on the standard density of water, thus falling within the instantly claimed range of instant claim 2);
(B) oxalic acid (pg. 2 col. 2 line 7 0.5 kg oxalic acid); and
(C) at least one buffer (pg. 2 col. 2 lines 6-7 boric and citric acid thus reading on the specific buffers of instant claim 4 and the buffer combination equaling 1.5 kg / 180 kg of water = 8.3 g/L thus falling within the instantly claimed range of claim 5).
As to claim 6, Schenk discloses a pH of the solutions between 1 and 3.5 thus falling within the instantly claimed range (pg. 1 lines 34-35).
Claims 1-6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al (CN 105256355 A with citations drawn to the translation provided via espacenet).
As to claims 1-5 and 16-18, Jiang discloses an electrolyte composition for eloxation of a component wherein the electrolyte composition ([0016]-[0019],[0037] among others describing the generic composition of the anodizing solution with citations below drawn towards Example 8 at [0088] ) comprises an aqueous solution of the following components:
(A) potassium titanium oxide oxalate ([0088] “potassium titanium oxalate 50 g/L” thus falling within the instantly claimed range of instant claim 2);
(B) oxalic acid ([0088] oxalic acid 8 g/L falling within the range of instant claims 3 and 16); and
(C) at least one buffer ([0088] “citric acid 12 g/L” satisfying the specific buffer of instant claims 4, 17, and 18 and concentration falling within the instantly claimed range of claim 5).
As to claims 6 and 19, using the online pH calculator available at webqc.org, the calculated pH of the disclosed electrolyte of example 8 is 4.5 thus falling within the instantly claimed ranges.
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.
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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schenk in view of Ikegaya et al (GB 1391808).
As to claims 7 and 20, Schenk fails to explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution further comprises aluminum oxalate as a component present in a concentration of 1 - 15 g/L in the aqueous solution.
Ikegaya discloses adding aluminum ions into an oxalic acid based anodization bath (pg. 2 lines 72-78) where the aluminum ions may be added in the form of aluminum oxalate (pg. 3 lines 1-2) in an amount of 0.05-6 g/L ( pg. 2 lines 115-118) which overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used aluminum oxalate in an amount of 0.05-6 g/L as taught by Ikegaya in the anodization bath of Schenk because the aluminum ions promote the coloration reaction and enable anodic oxidation at lower current densities with short treatment times (Ikegaya pg. 2 lines 110-115).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Ikegaya et al (GB 1391808).
As to claims 7 and 20, Jiang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution further comprises aluminum oxalate as a component present in a concentration of 1 - 15 g/L in the aqueous solution.
Ikegaya discloses adding aluminum ions into an oxalic acid based anodization bath (pg. 2 lines 72-78) where the aluminum ions may be added in the form of aluminum oxalate (pg. 3 lines 1-2) in an amount of 0.05-6 g/L ( pg. 2 lines 115-118) which overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used aluminum oxalate in an amount of 0.05-6 g/L as taught by Ikegaya in the anodization bath of Jiang because the aluminum ions promote the coloration reaction and enable anodic oxidation at lower current densities with short treatment times (Ikegaya pg. 2 lines 110-115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795