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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-19, and 22-25 are pending. Claim 20 is canceled.
In view of the amendment, filed 06/17/2025, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 01/29/2025:
Claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b)
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissenbach et al., WO 2005032756 A1 (“Wissenbach ‘756,” Espacenet translation of record 10/25/2023 is referenced below), in view of Cataldo et al., US 20120192424 A1, and Obeidi et al., Effect of Surface Roughness on CO2 Laser Absorption by 316L Stainless Steel and Aluminum (2019). Evidentiary support is provided by ASM Handbook, Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy (2015), Introduction to Metal Powder Injection Molding (“ASM Handbook,” of record 06/06/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Wissenbach ‘756 discloses a surface treatment process for manufacturing a metal- and/or cermet-based component (method for smoothing and polishing surfaces, lines 67-70, metal surfaces including steels and titanium materials, 171-174) from a base component (untreated workpiece), the base component comprising irregularities (workpiece having roughness, lines 124-129, 159-162; having pores, lines 186-188), obtained by a powder metallurgy method (parts made by metal injection molding (MIM), lines 186-187, which is a powder metallurgy method - evidenced by ASM Handbook), wherein the process comprises: improving a surface finish of the base component by superficial remelting of the surface zone of the base component (re-melting to smooth/eliminate roughness at surface, lines 124-131, 156-162) so that the surface zone has less irregularities than a core of the base component (to smooth roughness and eliminate pores, lines 128-129, 171, 187-188), wherein during the superficial remelting, the surface zone is melted over a depth greater than or equal to 50 μm (first re-melting depth is 5-500 μm, lines 157-159), wherein the surface zone of the base component after the superficial remelting has a depth greater than or equal to 50 μm (first re-melting depth is 5-500 μm, lines 157-159), then finishing a surface of the surface zone of the base component by mechanical finishing selected from the group consisting of grinding, machining, and polishing (conventional mechanical polishing to further improve surface quality, lines 189-190), so as to obtain the metal- and/or cermet-based component (smoothed/treated workpiece) from the base component.
The taught range for the surface zone of approximately 5 to 500 μm from Wissenbach ‘756 and the claimed range of greater than or equal to 50 μm are considerably overlapping. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the remelting depth depends on the extent of the roughness to begin with (lines 159-162), and the claimed depth for the surface zone during/after the superficial remelting of greater than or equal to 50 μm, at least up to and including 500 μm, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Wissenbach ‘756’s disclosed overlapping range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen a value for the depth of the surface zone during/after the superficial remelting of greater than or equal to 50 μm and at least up to and including 500 μm depending on an extent or depth of the original surface roughness with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wissenbach ‘756 is silent as to a step of (i) performing a preparation of the surface zone of the base component so as to reduce a reflectivity and increase an energy absorptivity of the surface zone, prior to performing the superficial remelting step.
In the analogous art, Obeidi discloses improving laser processing applications, such as laser polishing (Abstract), by performing a preparation of the surface zone of the base component (increasing surface roughness, Abstract, Introduction) so as to reduce a reflectivity and increase an energy absorptivity of the surface zone (increasing absorption of reflective metal materials/surfaces by surface roughening, Introduction, second and third paragraphs; Conclusion) prior to laser melting (roughening before laser processing, Abstract, Introduction third paragraph). Obeidi teaches the preparation step improves absorption of the laser energy thereby saving laser power (Abstract), reducing energy usage and allowing for processing with lower-power laser systems (Introduction third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface treatment process of Wissenbach ‘756 to include a prior step of performing a preparation of the surface zone of the base component so as to reduce a reflectivity and increase an energy absorptivity of the surface zone, in order to improve the efficiency of the laser surface processing of reflective surfaces of the metal materials, reduce energy requirements, and enable the use of lower power laser systems, as taught by Obeidi.
Wissenbach ‘756 teaches that the treatment process may be applied to any three-dimensional workpiece surface and is particularly suited for smoothing and polishing three-dimensional metal surfaces desired for decorative or technical applications in a simple, cost- and time-saving manner (lines 99-101). Wissenbach ‘756 is silent as to the surface treatment process being applied in the manufacture of a timepiece component.
Cataldo discloses a method for producing a timepiece component (watch case middle, Abstract, Fig. 1) from powdered metal material (e.g., steel, titanium alloys, [0025]) via a powder metallurgy / additive manufacturing process (Abstract, [0033]). After production of the timepiece component, Cataldo teaches additional processing (a finishing step, such as polishing) should be carried out on the surface of the timepiece component which will remain visible once the watch is fully assembled ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the surface treatment process of Wissenbach ‘756 to apply the process specifically to the manufacture of a timepiece component from the base component obtained by a powder metallurgy or additive manufacturing method as taught by Cataldo. Cataldo shows it was known that the production of a metallic timepiece component by powder-based manufacturing methods required additional surface treatment processing or finishing of visible external surfaces, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the surface treatment process of modified Wissenbach ‘756 to efficiently yield the predictable results of a polished, finished surface to obtain a metal- and/or cermet-based timepiece component from the base component.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the surface treatment process of claim 1, where Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the first re-melting depths lie in the range of approximately 5-500 μm depending on the unevenness of the surface (lines 157-159). In the case that a depth of the surface zone is greater than or equal to 50 μm and less than or equal to 500 μm, as set forth for claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that an average depth of the surface zone must be less than 1000 μm.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 1. The combination as set forth for claim 1 did not specify a particular preparation technique. Obeidi further teaches the preparation of the surface zone comprises chemical etching of the surface of the surface zone (roughening by using chemical etchants, Conclusion third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the preparation step of claim 1 comprises performing chemical etching of the surface of the surface zone, as taught by Obeidi, for achieving the laser energy absorption and efficiency benefits as forth above for claim 1.
The combination as set forth above does not explicitly disclose that the surface preparation by chemical etching achieves a layer modified by the preparation having a thickness of from 0.1 nm to 10 µm. However, Obeidi further discloses that roughening of the surface by equivalent methods such as shot peening (Conclusion third paragraph, roughening performed by shot peening or chemical etchants) is intended to produce average surface roughness values within the claimed range (Table 2, see High Roughness and Low Roughness values). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preparation step to further specify a layer modified by the preparation has a thickness of from 0.1 nm to 10 µm, in order to implement surface roughness values in line with Obeidi’s specifications for improving the laser beam absorption as forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 1, and Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the obtained product comprises the core having irregularities (workpiece having irregularities/pores beyond the surface remelting depth, see claim 1), and the surface zone having fewer irregularities than the core (treated surface zone having smoothed roughness, eliminated pores, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the core and the surface zone of the timepiece component are made of substantially the same material (both part of the same workpiece, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the surface zone has a porosity rate lower than a porosity rate of the core (pores are eliminated up to the remelting depth, lines 187-188).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9. Wissenbach ‘756 further discloses that pores are eliminated up to the remelting depth (lines 187-188), which defines the surface zone. Elimination of pores signifies no pores at the surface zone, meeting the claimed result that the surface zone has a porosity rate of size greater than 0.5 µm of less than 0.1%.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and Wissenbach ‘756 as set forth above discloses the surface zone has a depth greater than or equal to 50 µm (see claim 1). Wissenbach ‘756 does not explicitly disclose the surface zone after the finishing has a depth greater than or equal to 50 µm. However, the intention of Wissenbach’s overall process is to smooth and remove pores from the same material that will ultimately serve as the decorative metal material (lines 94-101, 171-174, 186-190). Accordingly, it would have been apparent that the subsequent final polishing described by Wissenbach is superficial and should not remove a significant portion of the same material that has just been smoothed and filled by the remelting treatment process. Therefore, as Wissenbach discloses the melted surface zone has a depth of up to 500 µm and is then polished for the finishing, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the surface zone after the polishing remains up to or marginally less than 500 µm and that the surface zone is not significantly reduced by the polishing, otherwise there would be no point in the disclosed remelting of the material to improve its properties only to remove most or all of the same material. The claimed range of greater than or equal to 50 µm overlaps the prior art range of less than or equal to 500 µm, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the smoothed and polished decorative metallic surface as disclosed by Wissenbach. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and Wissenbach ‘756 further discloses the surface zone after the finishing has an average depth less than 1000 µm (see claim 3). If the surface zone prior to the finishing has an average depth less than 1000 µm, then it must also have a depth less than 1000 µm after the finishing/polishing.
Regarding claim 15, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the surface zone extends over all of a surface of the timepiece component (the smoothed/remelted surface, lines 156-162).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9. Wissenbach ‘756 does not explicitly disclose the base component is based on the recited materials. However, Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process is suitable for metals, such as steels and titanium materials (lines 171-173), and those typically found in metal injection molding or investment casting (lines 186-187). Furthermore, Cataldo teaches forming the timepiece component from metals such as stainless steel, gold and platinum (precious metals), or titanium alloys ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the base component is based on at least austenitic stainless steel, titanium alloy, or precious metal alloy in order to ultimately form the treated timepiece component with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9. The combination as set forth previously did not address the base component being based on metals with low absorptivity of less than or equal to 30% and/or with high conductivity. The instant specification describes metals having these properties as Au, Al, Cu, Pt, Pd, and alloys thereof (p. 23, first paragraph). Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the laser treatment can be applied to a variety of metals (lines 171-174). Cataldo teaches forming the timepiece component from metals such as at least gold and platinum ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the base component is based on at least gold and/or platinum, and therefore is based on metals with low absorptivity of less than or equal to 30% and/or with high conductivity, as these materials were known for producing timepiece components, as taught by Cataldo, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the steps of the surface treatment process to these metal materials.
Regarding claim 18, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 9, and the combination further discloses the timepiece component is a middle (Cataldo, Title/Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses performing the surface treatment process of claim 9 on a base component obtained by a powder metallurgy or AM method and comprising irregularities in order to obtain the timepiece component (see claim 1). The combination as set forth above did not address providing a timepiece comprising the timepiece component. However, Cataldo further describes that the construction of the middle is performed prior to assembling the watch case ([0040]-[0041]), and it would have been obvious to further specify providing a timepiece comprising the timepiece component in order to provide a usable watch from the manufactured and treated component.
Regarding claim 22, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wissenbach ‘756 does not explicitly disclose the surface zone of the base component during/after the superficial remelting has a depth greater than 100 μm.
However, the taught range of approximately 5 to 500 μm from Wissenbach ‘756 and the claimed range of greater than 100 μm are considerably overlapping. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the remelting depth depends on the extent of the roughness to begin with (lines 159-162), and the claimed depth for the surface zone during/after the superficial remelting of greater than 100 μm, at least up to and including 500 μm, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Wissenbach ‘756’s disclosure of performing the first re-melting to a depth of 5 to 500 μm. One of ordinary skill in the art could have chosen a value for the depth of the surface zone during/after the superficial remelting of greater than 100 μm and at least up to and including 500 μm depending on an extent or depth of the original surface roughness with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5, 7, 23, and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissenbach et al., WO 2005032756 A1, in view of Cataldo et al., US 20120192424 A1, and Obeidi et al., Effect of Surface Roughness on CO2 Laser Absorption by 316L Stainless Steel and Aluminum (2019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishida et al., JP H0885819 A (Espacenet translation of record 06/06/2024 referenced below).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 1. The combination does not disclose the preparation comprises depositing chemical elements in the form of a surface coating wherein the depositing provides a quantity of chemical elements less than or equal to 5 at% with respect to an overall composition of the surface zone, wherein the surface coating has a thickness of from 0.1 nm to 10 µm.
In the analogous art, Nishida discloses a method for pretreating a metal workpiece to enable effective use of the laser energy by coating the workpiece with a material that absorbs at the laser wavelength when the workpiece is melt-processed or surface-modified using the laser ([0001]-[0002]). Nishida teaches coating (e.g., by sol-gel, ion plating, sputtering, CVD, [0013]) the surface of the workpiece prior to the laser processing with a chemical coating that absorbs light near the laser wavelength ([0007], [0013]) to improve the efficiency of the laser processing, such as laser melting and surface modification, on highly reflective metal surfaces ([0014]). Nishida teaches that extremely thin coatings less than 1 µm are effective ([0015]), and provides successful examples of surface coatings, including those having a thickness of about 530 nm ([0016]-[0018]) and 1.2 µm ([0031]-[0032]), i.e., the surface coating having a thickness from 0.1 nm to 10 µm. These coating thicknesses relative to the workpiece thicknesses (2 mm and 6 mm, respectively) result in a relatively thin coating, similar to or thinner than disclosed coating thicknesses of the instant application (table, PGPub [0068], [0071]), and applied using the same deposition techniques (instant PGPub [0067], [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preparation of the surface zone of the combination to utilize Nishida’s method for preparation by depositing chemical elements in the form of a surface coating, the surface coating has a thickness of from 0.1 nm to 10 µm, to reduce reflection and increase laser absorption, in place of the preparation of Obeidi by surface roughening to reduce reflection and increase laser absorption, as a substitution of one known technique for another yielding predictable results of surface preparation for subsequent laser processing to improve absorption. Both processes were for surface modification prior to laser processing to improve the laser absorption of reflective metal surfaces.
Nishida’s description of performing the same type of “depositing” of the chemical elements as presently disclosed (same technique, similar or thinner coating thicknesses) would have been expected to achieve substantially similar results to that recited by the claimed “wherein” clause which states the result of the “depositing” step, “wherein the depositing provides a quantity of chemical elements less than or equal to 5 at% with respect to an overall composition of the surface zone.”
The combination does not explicitly state that the quantity of chemical elements provided by the “depositing” step is less than or equal to 5 at% with respect to an overall composition of the surface zone. However, Nishida discloses that the coating thickness can vary depending on the coating’s absorptivity for the laser light, with less absorptive coating materials requiring thicker coatings, and more absorptive materials requiring thinner coatings ([0013]). As the coating thickness and associated laser absorption are variables that can be modified by adjusting the relative quantity of chemicals deposited to the surface, with said coating thickness and laser absorption increasing as a quantity of the deposited chemical elements for the absorptive coating is increased relative to the composition of the surface zone of the base component, the precise quantity of chemical elements deposited would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relative quantity of chemical elements cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed quantity of chemical elements in the surface treatment process of the combination to obtain the desired balance between coating thickness and laser absorption, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the coating thickness, as suggested by Nishida, to the extent practicable, in order to avoid permanent change to the appearance or material properties of the base component and the obtained treated part by the absorptive coating.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 1. The combination as set forth for claim 1 does not disclose the preparation of the surface zone comprises performing one of the claimed treatments.
Analogous art Nishida, as set forth above, discloses the pretreatment for improving laser absorption that involves the surface coating (see claim 5 above) which is an oxide or nitride coating layer ([0008], [0011]), which show high laser absorption ([0011]), with the thickness specifications as set forth above for claim 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preparation step of claim 1 to utilize Nishida’s method for preparation by performing an oxidation or nitridation treatment, wherein a layer modified by the preparation has a thickness of from 0.1 nm to 10 µm, to reduce reflection and increase laser absorption, in place of the preparation of Obeidi by surface roughening to reduce reflection and increase laser absorption, as a substitution of one known technique for another yielding predictable results of surface preparation for subsequent laser processing to improve absorption. Both processes were for surface modification prior to laser processing to improve the laser absorption of reflective metal surfaces.
Regarding claim 23, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 5, wherein the surface coating has a thickness of from 0.5 nm to 1 µm (Nishida: a thickness of about 530 nm ([0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 7, wherein the surface coating has a thickness of from 0.5 nm to 1 µm (Nishida: a thickness of about 530 nm ([0016]-[0018]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cataldo et al., US 20120192424 A, in view of Wissenbach ‘756, WO 2005032756 A1, and Obeidi et al., Effect of Surface Roughness on CO2 Laser Absorption by 316L Stainless Steel and Aluminum (2019).
Regarding claim 8, Cataldo teaches a process for manufacturing a timepiece component (method for producing a watch case middle, Abstract), wherein the process comprises: manufacturing a metal- and/or cermet-based (e.g., steel, titanium alloys, etc., [0025]) base component by a powder metallurgy or additive manufacturing method (formed layer-by-layer from powdered material using an additive manufacturing process such as DMLS, Abstract, Fig. 8). Cataldo teaches implementing on the base component a surface treatment process, such as polishing, for any external surface that will remain visible once the watch is assembled ([0040]), however Cataldo is silent as to the specific surface treatment process steps.
Wissenbach ‘756 in view of Obeidi teaches the surface treatment process for metals as described above with regard to claim 1. Wissenbach ‘756 teaches that mechanical polishing methods on their own may yield unsatisfactory results on complex three-dimensional geometries, and the laser smoothing and polishing method taught by the combination can be used on three-dimensional metal surfaces quickly and inexpensively to achieve a smooth polished surface (Wissenbach ‘756, lines 99-101, 171-179).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface treatment of the manufacturing process of Cataldo to utilize the surface treatment process taught by Wissenbach ‘756 in view of Obeidi as set forth for claim 1. Cataldo describes a need for implementing a surface treatment, and the process taught by modified Wissenbach ‘756 was superior to mechanical polishing alone and useful to smooth and polish metal surfaces quickly and efficiently.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissenbach et al., WO 2005032756 A1, in view of Cataldo et al., US 20120192424 A1, and Obeidi et al., Effect of Surface Roughness on CO2 Laser Absorption by 316L Stainless Steel and Aluminum (2019), as applied to claim 1 above, and alternatively further in view of Henrottin et al., US 20190168340 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wissenbach ‘756 discloses the process of claim 6. Obeidi teaches increasing the surface roughness of a material relative to a starting value to achieve the effects of reduced reflection and improved absorption (Results, pp. 1170-1171, Table 2). In one example, the surface is roughened so that its surface roughness is increased to 1.1 µm. The combination as set forth above does not explicitly disclose the layer modified by the preparation has a thickness of from 0.5 nm to 1 µm.
However, Obeidi discloses a relationship between an extent of the modified surface roughness and the corresponding change in laser-material interaction, such that an increased surface roughness relative to an initial roughness results directly in an improved laser absorption (Discussion pp. 1171-1172; Conclusion). As the laser reflection and absorption are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the extent of the modified surface roughness, with said reflection decreasing and absorption increasing as the surface roughness is increased, the precise extent of the surface modification would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed modified layer thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the treated layer of modified Wissenbach to obtain the desired balance between the laser reflection and absorption depending on a condition of the starting material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Alternatively, in the analogous art, Henrottin discloses laser processing of metals including pre-treatment to improve laser absorption (Abstract). Henrottin teaches pre-treatment by structuring or texturizing a reflective metal surface ([0020], [0029]) to increase the surface roughness and thereby achieve the improved laser absorption and subsequent melting ([0036]-[0037], [0044]). Henrottin teaches forming grooves in the surface at an overlapping depth range of 1 µm to 2 mm ([0089]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the layer modified by the surface roughening preparation of the combination had a thickness of around 1 µm in order to ensure a suitable groove depth for achieving the intended effects of reduced reflectivity and improved laser absorption relative to a smooth starting material, as taught by Henrottin, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections over Wissenbach in view of Lappalainen have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments (pp. 11-13) regarding provision of a coating/structuring/modified layer as the surface preparation have been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach or disclose the features of dependent claims 5-7 and 23-25. Regarding claim 5 and 23, as set forth previously and above, Nishida teaches providing a coating to improve the efficiency of laser absorption and provides guidance towards coating thicknesses rendering obvious the claimed ranges. Applicant does not specifically point out how the claim language patentably distinguishes over Nishida as applied or any specific reasons why the teachings of Nishida are deficient. Claims 6 and 7 and their dependents are addressed in the present action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abedi et al., An experimental study of the effects of surface roughness and coating of Cr2O3 layer on the laser-forming process (January 2019), describe improving laser absorptivity during laser surface operations by surface roughness and/or oxide layer coating.
CN 109759711 A, Rong et al., and US 20180126634 A1, Buerger et al. disclose processes of powder-based additive manufacturing with surface treatment by laser remelting.
Temmler et al., Laser polishing, (February 2012), detail laser polishing of metallic freeform surfaces by remelting of a surface layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754