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 .
This is in response to the Amendment dated February 18, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 12 have been 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.
The rejection of claims 6, 8, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bares et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0020925 A1) in view of KR 101817872 (‘872) and Chahboun et al. (“Sealing Mechanism of Nanoporous Alumina in Fluorozirconate Salt Containing Solutions,” Applied Surface Science (2021 Mar 1), Vol. 541, pp. 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Bares teaches a method of manufacturing a part comprising the following chronological steps of:
(a) supplying an aluminium alloy body (= the surface treatment of a part made of
aluminum or of magnesium or of one of their respective alloys, i.e. of aluminum alloy or of magnesium alloy) [page 1, [0009]],
(d) anodically oxidizing the body (= in some embodiments of the invention, the part undergoes a step of anodizing treatment prior to its immersion in the first bath and the second bath) [page 3, [0045]], and
(e) impregnating the body (= the step of immersion in the first bath) [page 3, [0027]] with an impregnating solution (= a first aqueous bath containing a metal-salt corrosion inhibitor, excluding a hexavalent chromium salt, and an oxidizing compound) [page 1, [0010]] comprising a trivalent chromium salt (= the metal-salt corrosion inhibitor may be for example a salt of chromium. The trivalent chromium salts are particularly preferred in the context of the invention) [page 1, [0014]] and an oxidising compound (= an oxidizing compound) [page 1, [0010]].
Bares does not explicitly teach (f) sealing the body with a sealing solution comprising an aluminate.
KR ‘872 teaches that:
The present invention relates to a sealing agent comprising aluminate acid or a salt thereof and a method for sealing alumina using the same. More specifically, the invention relates to a sealing agent comprising aluminate acid or a salt thereof and a method for sealing alumina
using the same, which is non-toxic, low-cost, and capable of enabling rapid sealing compared to conventional sealing methods using nickel (ρ [0001]).
In addition, sealing the porous oxide layer is an essential step not only to maintain the coloration inside the pores but also to improve its chemical and mechanical properties (ρ
[0005]).
Alumina can be sealed in an environmentally friendly manner using a sealing agent comprising aluminate acid or a salt thereof according to the present invention (ρ [0015]).
Therefore, compared to conventional sealing methods using nickel, the present invention has the advantage of being non-toxic, low-cost, and enabling rapid sealing treatment (ρ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Bares by sealing the body with a sealing solution comprising an aluminate. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using a sealing agent comprising aluminate acid or a salt thereof would have been non-toxic, low-cost, and enables a rapid sealing for alumina as taught by KR ‘872 in [0001], [0005], [0015] and [0017].
Regarding claim 6, KR ‘872 teaches wherein the sealing solution has a mass concentration of aluminate of between 0.1 g/L and 10 g/L (= the sealing agent for the above
aluminum anodizing process may include, but is not limited to 0.1 M to 1 M of aluminate or a
salt thereof) [ρ [0023]].
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘872 teaches wherein the aluminate is a sodium aluminate (= the
above aluminate salt may be any one selected from the group consisting of sodium aluminate, calcium aluminate, potassium aluminate, and magnesium aluminate, but is not limited thereto)
[ρ [0022]].
Regarding claim 8, Bares teaches wherein in step (d), the body is immersed in a tank
comprising a sulphuric anodic oxidation solution (= particularly preferred, in the context of the invention, are anodizing processes of the sulfuric anodizing type, diluted or not, such as standard sulfuric anodic oxidation (called OAS standard), diluted sulfuric anodic oxidation (called OAS
dilute), sulfo-tartaric anodic oxidation (OAST), sulfo-boric anodic oxidation (OASB), etc. These methods are well known by a person skilled in the art) [page 3, [0045]].
Bares does not explicitly teach wherein the sulphuric oxidation solution comprises sulphuric acid in a mass concentration of between 150 g/L and 250 g/L.
Chahboun teaches that anodizing was performed in 2 M H2SO4 at 18o C at 15 V until
growing a 10 µm oxide thickness (page 2, left column, lines 43-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulphuric oxidation solution taught by Bares with wherein the sulphuric oxidation solution comprises sulphuric acid in a mass concentration of between 150 g/L and 250 g/L. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Bares teaches that the anodizing processes are of the sulfuric anodizing type which these methods are well known by a person skilled in the art in [0045] where 2 M of H2SO41 is a suitable concentration of H2SO4 as taught by Chahboun on page 2, left column, lines 43-44, to use in anodizing for growing an oxide on an aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 9, Bares teaches wherein the impregnating solution has a temperature of between 30°C and 50°C (= the temperature of the first bath is between 10 and 80o C.,
preferably between 20 and 50o C) [page 2, [0028]].
Regarding claim 10, Bares teaches between steps (e) and (f), a step (e’) of post-
impregnating the body with a post-impregnating solution comprising hydrogen peroxide and a
lanthanum salt (= a particularly preferred composition for the second bath employs hydrogen peroxide H2O2 as oxidizing compound, and corresponds to one of the following compositions: Ce(NO3)3۰6H2O or La(NO3)3۰6H2O and H2O2) [page 3, [0043]].
Regarding claim 11, Bares teaches wherein the oxidizing compound is a hexafluorozirconate salt (= nonlimiting examples of such oxidizing compounds are substances based on fluorides, such as ammonium fluoride or potassium fluorozirconate K2ZrF6) [page 2, [0021]].
Regarding claim 12, KR ‘872 teaches wherein the sealing solution has a pH of between 7 and 12 (= therefore, the pH of the solution containing the aluminate or its salt is preferably 5 to 8) [ρ [0028]].
Continued Response
II. Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bares et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0020925 A1) in view of KR 101817872 (‘872) and Chahboun et al. (“Sealing Mechanism of Nanoporous Alumina in Fluorozirconate Salt Containing Solutions,” Applied Surface Science (2021 Mar 1), Vol. 541, pp. 1-7) as applied to claims 5-12 above.
Regarding claim 13, Bares in view of KR ‘872 and Chahboun teaches the method of at
least claims 5-12 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein the sealing
solution has a mass concentration of aluminate of between 0.5 g/L and 5 g/L.
KR ‘872 teaches that:
The above aluminate salt may be any one selected from the group consisting of sodium aluminate, calcium aluminate, potassium aluminate, and magnesium aluminate, but is not limited thereto (ρ [0022]).
The sealing agent for the above aluminum anodizing process may include, but is not limited to 0.1 M to 1 M of aluminate or a salt thereof (ρ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminate taught by Bares in view of KR ‘872 with wherein the sealing solution has a mass concentration of aluminate of between 0.5 g/L and 5 g/L. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because KR ‘872 teaches 0.1 M of sodium aluminate in [0022] and [0023]. 0.1 M of sodium aluminate (NaAlO2) is equivalent to 8.2 g/L of sodium aluminate where a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough2 that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, it has been held that changes in temperature, concentration or both, is not a patentable modification; however, such changes may impart patentability to a process if the ranges claimed produce new and unexpected results which are different in kind and not merely in degree from results of the prior art, such ranges are termed “critical” ranges and
Applicant has the burden of proving such criticality; even though Applicant’s modification
results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within capabilities of one skilled in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Bares teaches wherein the impregnating solution has a temperature of 40°C. (= the temperature of the first bath is between 10 and 80o C., preferably between 20 and 50o C., for example equal to 40o C) [page 2, [0028]].
III. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bares et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0020925 A1) in view of KR 101817872 (‘872) and Chahboun et al. (“Sealing Mechanism of Nanoporous Alumina in Fluorozirconate Salt Containing Solutions,” Applied Surface Science (2021 Mar 1), Vol. 541, pp. 1-7) as applied to claims 5-12 above, and further in view of Nishikori et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0229263 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bares in view of KR ‘872 and Chahboun teaches the method of at
least claims 5-12 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein in step (d), the body is immersed in a tank comprising a sulphuric anodic oxidation solution comprising sulphuric acid in a mass concentration of 180 g/L.
Bares teaches that particularly preferred, in the context of the invention, are anodizing processes of the sulfuric anodizing type, diluted or not, such as standard sulfuric anodic oxidation (called OAS standard), diluted sulfuric anodic oxidation (called OAS dilute), sulfo-tartaric anodic oxidation (OAST), sulfo-boric anodic oxidation (OASB), etc. These methods are well known by a
person skilled in the art (page 3, [0045]).
Nishikori teaches an anodizing treatment:
An aluminum base was dipped into a 30% nitric acid aqueous solution for 1 minute at room temperature, and thereafter, dipped into a 5% sodium hydroxide aqueous solution at 50°
C. for 1 minute, and further dipped into a 30% nitric acid aqueous solution for 1 minute at room temperature. Next, the base was anodized in a 180 g/L of a sulfuric acid solution at 18° C. by passing a direct current of 18 V so that a film thickness was 10 μm to obtain an anodized aluminum base (page 7, [0106]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify step (d) taught by Bares with wherein in step (d), the body is immersed in a tank comprising a sulphuric anodic oxidation solution comprising sulphuric acid in a mass concentration of 180 g/L. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Bares teaches that the anodizing processes are of the sulfuric anodizing type which these methods are well known by a person skilled in the art in [0045] where 180 g/L of sulfuric acid is a suitable concentration of sulfuric acid as taught by Nishikori in [0106] to use in anodizing for providing an anodized aluminum base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejection has been maintained for the following reasons:
• Applicant states that accordingly, Bares does not disclose the claimed structure of two separate post-anodizing steps: (e) impregnation a trivalent chromium salt plus an oxidizer, and
then (f) a different sealing step (aluminate) - in that order since the claim expressly recites that its steps are chronological and it would make no sense for perform step (f) before step (e) or
somehow combine the two. Instead, Bares teaches a complete sealing methodology (Bath 1 + Bath 2) to be used after anodizing.
In response, Bares teaches two separate post-anodizing steps:
(e) impregnating the body (= the step of immersion in the first bath) [page 3, [0027]] with an impregnating solution (= a first aqueous bath containing a metal-salt corrosion inhibitor, excluding a hexavalent chromium salt, and an oxidizing compound) [page 1, [0010]] comprising a trivalent chromium salt (= the metal-salt corrosion inhibitor may be for example a salt of chromium. The trivalent chromium salts are particularly preferred in the context of the invention) [page 1, [0014]] and an oxidising compound (= an oxidizing compound) [page 1, [0010]];3 and
(e’) post-impregnating the body with a post-impregnating solution comprising hydrogen peroxide and a lanthanum salt (= a particularly preferred composition for the second bath employs hydrogen peroxide H2O2 as oxidizing compound, and corresponds to one of the following compositions: La(NO3)3۰6H2O and H2O2) [page 3, [0043]].4
Although the Applicant has a different reason for, or advantage, resulting from doing what the prior art relied upon has suggested, it is noted that it is well settled that this is not demonstrative of nonobviousness. The prior art motivation or advantage may be different than
that of Applicant’s while still supporting a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
Step (f) sealing the body with a sealing solution comprising an aluminate is coming from KR ‘872 (ρ [0001]).
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
As evidenced by Beaver (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0011688 A1), a seal process include a triple seal:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 3, [0030]; and Fig. 2).
The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because triple sealing anodized aluminum would have maximized its corrosion resistance.5
• Applicant states that Chahboun nowhere discloses or suggests “impregnate with an impregnating solution comprising a trivalent chromium salt and an oxidising compound,” then seal with aluminate.
In response, the rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150 USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
There is no requirement that the motivation to make the combination be expressly articulated in one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Rosselet 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1960). References are evaluated by what they collectively suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
Chahboun is used in the rejection to teach the mass concentration of the sulphuric acid that is recited in present claim 8.
• Applicant states that this rationale is insufficient and conclusory because it provides only the general proposition that “sealing follows anodizing,” without addressing why a POSITA
would add KR ‘872’s aluminate seal after Bares’ process, rather than simply selecting one
sealing method or substituting one known sealant for another.
• Applicant states that given that Bares teaches its own method as the post-anodizing sealing solution, the Office Action must provide evidence-based reasoning explaining why a POSITA would be motivated to provide an additional aluminate sealing step after Bares' post-anodizing treatment - rather than simply practice Bares as taught or choose KR ‘872 as an alternative sealing method. The Office Action does not provide such reasoning.
In response, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Bares by sealing the body with a sealing solution comprising an aluminate. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because using a sealing agent comprising aluminate acid or a salt thereof would have been non-toxic, low-cost, and
enables a rapid sealing for alumina as taught by KR ‘872 in [0001], [0005], [0015] and [0017].
And as evidenced by Beaver (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0011688 A1), a seal process include a triple seal (page 3, [0030]; and Fig. 2).6
The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
modification because triple sealing anodized aluminum would have maximized its corrosion
resistance.7
• Applicant states that KR ‘872 provides “a sealing agent for an aluminum anodizing
process, comprising aluminate or a salt thereof.” KR ‘872 does not teach combining aluminate
sealing after a chromium-based/oxidizer bath treatment as claimed, nor does it describe compatibility, benefit, or motivation for such combination.
In response, there is no requirement that the motivation to make the combination be expressly articulated in one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Rosselet 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1960). References are evaluated by what they collectively suggest to one
versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA
1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
And as evidenced by Beaver (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0011688 A1), a seal process include a triple seal (page 3, [0030]; and Fig. 2).8
The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
modification because triple sealing anodized aluminum would have maximized its corrosion
resistance.9
• Applicant states that even if a motivation existed, obviousness requires a reasonable
expectation of success. MPEP 2143.02. Here, the cited art indicates that sealing layer formation and performance depend sensitively on specific chemistries and interfacial reactions, making the proposed serial combination unpredictable, rendering a reasonable expectation of success unlikely.
In response, Bares in view of KR ‘872 and Chahboun teaches the method of at
least claims 5-13 and 15 as applied above. Similar processes can reasonably be expected to
yield similar results.
Furthermore, the method recited in present claim 1 does not recite any specific chemistries in its steps to distinguish any unpredictable outcomes. And thus, the combination of Bares et al. in view of KR 101817872 (‘872) and Chahboun et al., and further in view of Nishikori et al. as applied above, and as evidenced by Beaver, is deemed reasonable to accomplish.
• Applicant states that accordingly, Chahboun does not support a reasonable expectation of success for simply appending an aluminate seal after a chromium/oxidizer
impregnation; it supports unpredictability and the need for chemistry-specific design.
In response, the rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150 USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
Chahboun is used in the rejection to teach the mass concentration of the sulphuric acid that is recited in present claim 8.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
• Applicant states that thus, the rejection is based on hindsight reconstruction rather
than a teaching or suggestion in the cited art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
• Applicant states that thus, the Office Action’s premise that one would “modify” Bares
by adding aluminate sealing treats Bares’ already complete sealing system as though it were unfinished, without identifying any deficiency or gap in Bares that would predictably be addressed by appending an additional, chemically distinct sealing step.
In response, as evidenced by Beaver (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0011688 A1), a seal process include a triple seal (page 3, [0030]; and Fig. 2).10
The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
modification because triple sealing anodized aluminum would have maximized its corrosion
resistance.11
There is no requirement that the motivation to make the combination be expressly articulated in one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Rosselet 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1960). References are evaluated by what they collectively suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
• Applicants states that third, KR ‘872 merely teaches that an aluminate (or its salt) can function as a sealing agent for anodized alumina; it does not teach applying aluminate sealing after a trivalent chromium salt and an oxidising compound impregnation/sealing step, nor does it provide compatibility guidance or an articulated benefit for serially combining those chemistries. In view of Bares’ already complete sealing method and Chahboun’s demonstration of chemistry-specific mechanisms governing sealing layer formation, the Office Action’s reliance on a broad “predictable variations” rationale is insufficient. The cited art does not show that the claimed two-
step sequence would have been expected to work as a routine combination, and therefore does not
satisfy the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning or a reasonable expectation of success.
In response, as evidenced by Beaver (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0011688 A1), a seal process include a triple seal:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 3, [0030]; and Fig. 2).
The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because triple sealing anodized aluminum would have maximized its corrosion
resistance.12
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the method according to claim 5, wherein the sealing solution has a pH of 11. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
KR 101817872 teaches that if the pH of the solution containing the aluminate acid or its salt exceeds 8, problems such as the leaching of alumina by the base may occur (ρ [0028]).
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouwasnssi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0232672 A1) is cited to teach that the method comprises the steps of:
a) contacting a Cr(III)-conversion coating localized on the surface of an anodized layer of aluminium or aluminium alloy, the anodized layer having a thickness in the nm-range to µm-range, with the inventive solution for a time of 30 seconds to 5 minutes, wherein the inventive solution has a temperature of 20 to 25o C., to form a modified Cr(III)-conversion coating; and (page 3, [0052])
b) sealing the modified Cr(III) conversion coating by contacting the modified Cr(III) conversion coating with water having temperature of 98 to 100o C. for a time of 1 to 5 min per µm thickness of the anodized layer (page 3, [0053]).
Drevet et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0064264 A1) is cited to teach that:
In accordance with one embodiment of the invention, prior to the silicate salt clogging
step (step B)), an immersion step A1) of said part (page 3, [0049]),
in an aqueous bath containing a trivalent chromium salt selected from the group consisting of CrF3۰xH2O, CrCl3۰xH2O, Cr(NO3)3۰xH2O, (CH3CO2)2Cr۰xH2O, (CH3CO2)2Cr3(OH)2۰xH2O, Cr2(SO4)3۰xH2O, CrK(SO4)2۰xH2O (step A1-1)) [page 3, [0050]];
then optionally (page 3, [0051])
in an aqueous bath containing an oxidizing compound selected from the group consisting of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), ammonium fluoride (NH4F), potassium fluoro-zirconate (K2ZrF6), potassium permanganate (KMnO4), sodium permanganate (NaMnO4) (step A1-2)) [page 3, [0051]];
can take place (page 3, [0053]).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
12 M of H2SO4 is equivalent to 196.15 g/L of H2SO4.
2 i.e., 8 g/L of sodium aluminate is close enough to the 5 g/L of the aluminate.
3 Present claim 5, lines 5-6.
4 Present claim 10, lines 1-3.
5 Bares teaches that the surface treatment of parts made of aluminum-based light alloys and aluminum alloy in order to endow them with corrosion protection (page 1, [0001]).
6 i.e., steps (e), (e’) and f as presently claimed.
7 Bares teaches that the surface treatment of parts made of aluminum-based light alloys and aluminum alloy in order to endow them with corrosion protection (page 1, [0001]).
8 i.e., steps (e), (e’) and f as presently claimed.
9 Bares teaches that the surface treatment of parts made of aluminum-based light alloys and aluminum alloy in order to endow them with corrosion protection (page 1, [0001]).
10 i.e., steps (e), (e’) and f as presently claimed.
11 Bares teaches that the surface treatment of parts made of aluminum-based light alloys and aluminum alloy in order to endow them with corrosion protection (page 1, [0001]).
12 Bares teaches that the surface treatment of parts made of aluminum-based light alloys and aluminum alloy in order to endow them with corrosion protection (page 1, [0001]).