DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 5-21 and 23 are withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 January 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 January 2026 was filed with the mailing date of the request for continued examination. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 stand.
New grounds of rejection are presented.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labunov et al. (SU 767239).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 22, Labunov discloses an aluminum plating electrolyte (title) (= an electrolyte for forming an anodic oxide), the electrolyte comprising:
1-7 wt % citric acid [0001] (= citric acid, wherein the citric acid accounts for 3.0 wt% or more and 6.0 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte);
0.4 – 2 wt % sulfuric acid [0001] (= an additive wherein the additive comprises one or more selected from among tartaric acid, sulfuric acid, and sodium acetate, and wherein the additive accounts for 0.5 wt% or more and 4.0 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte. The concentration ranges of Labunov overlap with the claimed ranges therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where 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 (MPEP § 2144.05 II A). Regarding the claimed “without a porous layer” the phrase does not further materially limit the claimed electrolyte. The claim language is directed towards the intended use of the electrolyte. Regarding claim 4, sodium acetate is optionally present. Regarding claim 22, the produced result of using the claimed electrolyte does not further limit the claimed electrolyte.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labunov et al. (SU 767239) in view of Harrington et al. (US 2002/0125143).
Regarding claim 3, Labunov discloses 1-7 wt % citric acid [0001] and 0.4 – 2 wt % sulfuric acid [0001]. Regarding the claimed sodium acetate, the claim includes a range including 0 wt% therefore the sodium acetate is optionally present.
Labunov fails to disclose the electrolyte comprising 1.0 wt% tartaric acid.
In the same or similar field of anodizing, Harrington discloses an electrolyte comprising citric acid and tartaric acid in an amount of 0.03 to about 10 wt% [0036]. Harrington discloses that the use of alpha-hydroxy group acids including citric acid and tartaric acid tend to produce highly hydration-resistant anodic aluminum oxide [0020].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an electrolyte comprising tartaric acid because Harrington discloses the use of a combination of alpha-hydroxy group acids including citric acid and tartaric acid tend to produce highly hydration-resistant anodic aluminum oxide [0020].
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR 102468324).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an electrolyte for forming an anodized coating layer [0022] (= an electrolyte for forming an anodic oxide film), the electrolyte comprising:
0.5 to 4 wt% citric acid [0025]-[0026] (= citric acid, wherein the citric acid accounts for 3.0 wt% or more and 6.0 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte); and
0.5 to 8 wt% sulfuric acid [0026] (= an additive, the additive comprises one or more selected from among tartaric acid, sulfuric acid, and sodium acetate, and the additive accounts for 0.5 wt% or more and 4.0 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte).
The ranges of Yu overlap the claimed ranges therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where 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.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses 0.5 to 8 wt% sulfuric acid [0026] which overlaps the claimed range therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (= wherein the electrolyte comprises 1.5 wt% or more and 2.5 wt% or less of one or more selected from among the tartaric acid, the sulfuric acid, and the sodium acetate).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses 0.5 to 4 wt% citric acid and 0.5 to 8 wt% sulfuric acid [0025]-[0026]. Although the range of Yu for citric acid lies outside the claimed range (6 wt%), it is close enough to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable result. Regarding the claimed sodium acetate, the claim includes a range including 0 wt% therefore the sodium acetate is optionally present.
Regarding claim 22, the instant claim does not appear to further limit the claimed electrolyte. The product produced by the use of the electrolyte does not further limit the claimed electrolyte.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR 102468324) in view of Harrington et al. (US 2002/0125143).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses 0.5 to 4 wt% citric acid and 0.5 to 8 wt% sulfuric acid [0025]-[0026]. Regarding the claimed sodium acetate, the claim includes a range including 0 wt% therefore the sodium acetate is optionally present.
Yu fails to disclose the electrolyte comprising 1.0 wt% tartaric acid.
In the same or similar field of anodizing, Harrington discloses an electrolyte comprising citric acid and tartaric acid in an amount of 0.03 to about 10 wt% [0036]. Harrington discloses that the use of alpha-hydroxy group acids including citric acid and tartaric acid tend to produce highly hydration-resistant anodic aluminum oxide [0020].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an electrolyte comprising tartaric acid because Harrington discloses the use of a combination of alpha-hydroxy group acids including citric acid and tartaric acid tend to produce highly hydration-resistant anodic aluminum oxide [0020].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claimed “without a porous layer” does not further limit the claimed electrolyte. The electrolyte is not limited by the product produced from using the electrolyte. Regarding the inclusion of oxalic acid and malic acid in the disclosure of Yu (page 8 of the response, see Table), the instant claims do not exclude additional elements of the claimed electrolyte. The instant claims utilize the transitional phrase “comprising” and therefore additional elements are not excluded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights