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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the cold-spraying of the first joining surface of the first component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a first bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface, wherein the cold-spraying of the second joining surface of the second component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a second bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface” of claim 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. This directs that a second coating should be sprayed on “the first joining surface of the first component body” and there is no figure that depicts that.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 17 June 2025. As directed by applicant, Only claims 1, 15 and 24 have been amended, and new claims 25-28 have been added. Claims 2,7, 10,16, 22 and 23 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1,3-5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-19 and 24-28 are currently pending. This is a Final Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 currently depends from cancelled claim 16 and claim 26 currently depends from claim 26(!). It should properly be that claim 17 depends from claim 15 and claim 26 depends from claim 25. For the purposes of examination, they will be understood this way. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 27, “wherein the cold-spraying of the first joining surface of the first component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a first bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface, wherein the cold-spraying of the second joining surface of the second component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a second bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface” is not described in the specification. This directs that a second coating should be sprayed on “the first joining surface of the first component body” and that will somehow be bonded to the first and second joining surfaces “wherein each of the first and second bond coatings includes an inner surface that bonds to the first and second joining surface, respectively” and there is no disclosure to this affect. Figs. 5A-5C and the disclosure properly indicates that the following:
“wherein the cold-spraying of the first joining surface of the first component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a first bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface, wherein the cold-spraying of the second joining surface of the second component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a second bond coating of the bond material onto the [[first]] second joining surface, wherein each of the first and second bond coatings includes an inner surface that bonds to the first and second joining surfaces, respectively, and an external surface opposite the inner surface, and wherein the joining the first and second component bodies further includes bringing the first and second component bodies together such that the external surfaces of the first and second bond coatings abut one another at an interface.”
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.
Claim 27 is 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 claim does not make it clear how, if a second bond coating is sprayed on “the first joining surface”, how it is that, in the continuation of the claim, “wherein each of the first and second bond coatings includes an inner surface that bonds to the first and second joining surfaces, respectively”. It is unclear how this second bond coating bonds to the second joining surface if it is not sprayed at the second joining surface. For purposes of examination, it will be understood that the first bond coating is sprayed at the first joining surface and the second bond coating is sprayed at “the second joining surface”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §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.
[Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that particular limitation]
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11, 13- 15, 18, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0244262) and Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151).
Regarding claim 1, Kayamoto discloses a method of joining first and second component bodies (fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
cold-spraying (¶0028, “cold spraying”)a first joining surface (fig. 2, plane 111 of tapered portion 11a) of the first component body (11) with a bond material (13),
cold-spraying a second joining surface (equivalent to 111 of tapered portion 11a ON tapered portion 12a) of the second component body (element 12) with the bond material (13),
joining the first component body and the second component body by way of the first joining surface (they are joined via both joining surfaces),
Kayamoto does not disclose wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body, and wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the second joining surface and the second component body, nor wherein the cold-spraying of the first and second joining surfaces causes the first and second joining surfaces to deform, nor
wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first joining surface and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second joining surface are both great enough such that the deformation of the first and second joining surfaces during cold-spraying causes mechanical interlocking between the bond material and the first and second joining surfaces, nor
wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, Sato teaches a “wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body” (Sato, ¶fig. 1, ¶¶0027, 0024, by “cold spraying” ; “Such materials [particles 31] may be properly selected that are different from the material of the metal substrate and harder than the metal substrate”, emphasis added, and this indicates that all of the particles are harder, and that certainly includes the majority).. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto with the teaching of Sato, to, when bonding to material, making at least the majority of the bonding material stronger than the first surface and the first component body, in order to create a stronger bond between the component and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well. As for the bonding material being harder than the second joining surface and the second joining part, it would merely be a matter of a duplication of parts to also have the bonding material that is attached to the second surface also be harder than the second member, in order to create a stronger bond between that component too, and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
And while Kayamoto in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein the cold-spraying of the first and second joining surfaces causes the first and second joining surfaces to deform, nor
wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first joining surface and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second joining surface are both great enough such that the deformation of the first and second joining surfaces during cold-spraying causes mechanical interlocking between the bond material and the first and second joining surfaces, and
wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, Thuss teaches wherein the cold-spraying of the first and second joining surfaces causes the first and second joining surfaces to deform (Thuss, fig. 2B, ¶0026), and
wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first joining surface and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second joining surface are both great enough such that the deformation of the first and second joining surfaces during cold-spraying causes mechanical interlocking between the bond material and the first and second joining surfaces (Thuss, ¶¶0027, 0048 i.e. the cold spraying allows for the “mechanical interlocking” and deforming, and there is a difference in hardness between the sprayed material and the substrate as the coating is used to improve the mechanical properties of the device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, with the teaching of Thuss, to have the spraying deform the substrates and mechanically interlock into them, in order to create a good bond with this harder material in order to improve upon the properties of the substrate (i.e. making it harder) and more wear resistant, for instance.
While the above references teach all the limitations above, they still do not teach wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, it is noted that cold-spraying a material to achieve the greater hardness as claimed is conventional, such as in Kuwabara (¶0034, cold-spraying successive layer; ¶¶0032,35,36, Table 1, for instance, having stainless steel JIS SUS 304, with Vickers hardness about 129Hv, being cold-sprayed with material with over 700 Hv, to achieve to achieve strength and hardness that stays on and protects the underlying workpiece). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss with the teaching of and Kuwabara, to cold-spray a base material with a material where the difference between the first material and the second material is over 100 Hv, as taught, in order to create strong bonding between the materials, to prevent peeling, but also to achieve strength and hardness, so as to be resilient to outside forces trying to upset the connection.
Regarding claim 3, Kayamoto in view of Sato and Thuss teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein an entirety of the material that comprises the bond material is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body, wherein an entirety of the material that comprises the bond material is harder than the second joining surface and the second component body (this would have been taught in Sato, and Kuwabara, see citations above).
Regarding claim 4, Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the method comprises: cold-spraying the bond material onto and between the first joining surface and the second joining surface to form a joint between the first joining surface and the second joining surface, thereby joining the first component body and the second component body to one another (Kayamoto, fig. 1, the material is on and between the first and second joining surfaces, and thereby joining the first component body and the second component body).
Regarding claim 8, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the first joining surface and the second joining surface comprise different materials (Kayamoto, ¶¶0024,0025, elements 11 and 12 are different kinds of metals).
Regarding claim 11, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the first joining surface, and the second joining surface each comprises a metal or a metal alloy (Kayamoto, ¶¶0024-25).
Regarding claim 13, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the bond material comprises a metal (Kayamoto, 13 “metal film”, ¶0023) or a metal alloy, and/or a ceramic.
Regarding claim 14, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teaches a component (Kayamoto, fig. 1, as modified by Sato) manufactured by joining first component body and the second component body by the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Kayamoto discloses A component (Kayamoto, fig. 1) comprising: a first component body (11) and a second component body (12) joined to one another at a joint (where 11 and 12 meet) by a region of bond material (13) in direct contact with the first component body and the second component body (Kayamoto, fig. 1); wherein the first component body comprises a first body material (¶¶0024), the second component body comprises a second body material (¶0025),
However, Kayamoto does not disclose wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first body material and the second body material when measured under the same conditions, nor
wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first component body and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second component body are both great enough such that mechanical interlocking occurs between the bond material and the first and second component bodies, nor
wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, Sato teaches a “wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body” (Sato, ¶fig. 1, ¶¶0027, 0024, by “cold spraying” ; “Such materials [particles 31] may be properly selected that are different from the material of the metal substrate and harder than the metal substrate”, emphasis added, and this indicates that all of the particles are harder, and that certainly includes the majority).. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto with the teaching of Sato, to, when bonding to material, making at least the majority of the bonding material stronger than the first surface and the first component body, in order to create a stronger bond between the component and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well. As for the bonding material being harder than the second joining surface and the second joining part, it would merely be a matter of a duplication of parts to also have the bonding material that is attached to the second surface also be harder than the second member, in order to create a stronger bond between that component too, and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
And while Kayamoto in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first component body and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second component body are both great enough such that mechanical interlocking occurs between the bond material and the first and second component bodies, nor
wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, Thuss teaches wherein a first difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the first component body and a second difference in hardness between the bond material and a material of the second component body are both great enough such that mechanical interlocking occurs between the bond material and the first and second component bodies (Thuss, ¶¶0027, 0048 i.e. the cold spraying allows for the “mechanical interlocking” and deforming, and there is a difference in hardness between the sprayed material and the substrate as the coating is used to improve the mechanical properties of the device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, with the teaching of Thuss, to have the spraying deform the substrates and mechanically interlock into them, in order to create a good bond with this harder material in order to improve upon the properties of the substrate (i.e. making it harder) and more wear resistant, for instance.
And while the above references teach all the limitations above, they still do not teach wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, it is noted that cold-spraying a material to achieve the greater hardness as claimed is conventional, such as in Kuwabara (¶0034, cold-spraying successive layer; ¶¶0032,35,36, Table 1, for instance, having stainless steel JIS SUS 304, with Vickers hardness about 129Hv, being cold-sprayed with material with over 700 Hv, to achieve to achieve strength and hardness that stays on and protects the underlying workpiece). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss with the teaching of and Kuwabara, to cold-spray a base material with a material where the difference between the first material and the second material is over 100 Hv, as taught, in order to create strong bonding between the materials, to prevent peeling, but also to achieve strength and hardness, so as to be resilient to outside forces trying to upset the connection.
Regarding claim 17, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is about 150 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first body material when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is at about 150 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second body material when measured under the same conditions (Kuwabara, ¶0034, cold-spraying successive layer; ¶¶0032,35,36, Table 1, for instance, having stainless steel JIS SUS 304, with Vickers hardness about 129 Hv, being cold-sprayed with material with over 700 Hv, to achieve to achieve strength and hardness that stays on and protects the underlying workpiece).
Regarding claim 18, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thus, and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and but does not further teach a component wherein the region of bond material comprises a weld and wherein a heat-affected zone of the weld is restricted to the region of bond material. However, keeping the heat affected zone to the bond material ensures not the weaken the rest of the material and only the bond material is being strengthened by the spraying and the welding, and other areas are not being adversely affected. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thus, and Kuwabara, to ensures not the weaken the rest of the material and only the bond material is being strengthened by the spraying and the welding, and other areas are not being adversely affected.
Regarding claim 19, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thus, and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches a component wherein the first body material and/or the second body material is a metal or a metal alloy (¶¶0024,0025, aluminum and copper), and wherein the bond material comprises a metal (Kayamoto, metal film 13, ¶0023) or a metal alloy, and/or a ceramic.
Claim(s) 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0244262) and Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151) and further in view of Hu (Chinese Patent Publication CN108994442; in Applicant’s IDS as “Beijing Inst. Petrochem Tech”; English Specification attached)
Regarding claim 5, Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 4, above, but does not further teach a method further comprising heating the joint, wherein the method comprises heating the joint for at least 30 minutes and wherein heating the joint comprises holding the joint at a temperature from about 200 degrees C to about 1000 degrees C. However, Hu does teach a heating rate for the friction stir welding (Hu, p. 3 2nd to last paragraph, 30 mm/min) and wherein heating the joint comprises holding the joint at a temperature from about 200 degrees C to about 1000 degrees C (Hu, p. 2 ¶6, preheating temperature of 500 degrees, and then the friction stir welding takes the temperature to “around 900-1300 degrees”, evidence of temperatures from and found at https://www.pierceindustries.com/resources/friction-welding-everything-need-know/#:~:text=The%20process%20uses%20friction%20to,around%20900%E2%80%931300%20degree%20centigrade. See MPEP §2131.03). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to Modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara with the teachings of Hu, to have the heating, or preheating of the joint according to the time and temperature in the claim if the workpieces and the desired distance to weld was large enough, and preheating means that it would be easier to join by cold spraying and prepare the surface for treatment (see Zhai, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160151854, ¶42).
Regarding claim 9, Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the method comprises: cold-spraying the first joining surface with the bond material to form a first bond coating (fig. 1); and cold-spraying the second joining surface of the second component body with the bond material to form a second bond coating (Kayamoto, fig. 1, the bonding material of 13 over each surface can be designated different coatings). But it does not teach welding the first bond coating to the second component body. However, Hu (Hu, Abstract) teaches applying friction welding to affect a strong bond after the cold spraying. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara with the teachings of Hu, to have further welding, , in order to integrate stronger pieces into the matrix (via the heating and welding, taught in Hu) in order to create a stronger bond than the cold-spraying in a conventional way without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0244262) and Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151), in view of Li (U.S. Patent number 6,413,589).
Regarding claim 12, Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the first joining surface, and the second joining surface each further comprises a non-metallic, intermetallic, ceramic or oxide phase. However, Li teaches such surfaces to spray and join (Abstract, at least; column 39 line 20, describing the different types of bonds “ceramic/ceramic” for instance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara, with a further teaching of Li, to have different kinds of work-pieces to be bonded and worked together, to create stronger bonds, with different materials, using the conventional means of coating and embedding particles, via spraying, in order to make new surfaces for better and stronger use.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0244262) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151)
Regarding claim 24, Kayamoto discloses a method of joining first and second component bodies (fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
cold-spraying (¶0028, “cold spraying”)a first joining surface (fig. 2, plane 111 of tapered portion 11a) of the first component body (11) with a bond material (13),
cold-spraying a second joining surface (equivalent to 111 of tapered portion 11a ON tapered portion 12a) of the second component body (element 12) with the bond material (13),
joining the first component body and the second component body by way of the first joining surface (they are joined via both joining surfaces),
Kayamoto does not disclose wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body, and wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the second joining surface and the second component body.
nor
wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, Sato teaches a “wherein a majority of the bond material is comprised of material that is harder than the first joining surface and the first component body” (Sato, ¶fig. 1, ¶¶0027, 0024, by “cold spraying” ; “Such materials [particles 31] may be properly selected that are different from the material of the metal substrate and harder than the metal substrate”, emphasis added, and this indicates that all of the particles are harder, and that certainly includes the majority).. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto with the teaching of Sato, to, when bonding to material, making at least the majority of the bonding material stronger than the first surface and the first component body, in order to create a stronger bond between the component and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well. As for the bonding material being harder than the second joining surface and the second joining part, it would merely be a matter of a duplication of parts to also have the bonding material that is attached to the second surface also be harder than the second member, in order to create a stronger bond between that component too, and the sprayed material, so that the material would be less likely to crack and break apart, as well (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B).
While the above references teach all the limitations above, they still do not teach wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the first joining surface when measured under the same conditions, and wherein the Vickers hardness of the bond material is more than 100 HV greater than the Vickers hardness of the second joining surface when measured under the same conditions.
However, it is noted that cold-spraying a material to achieve the greater hardness as claimed is conventional, such as in Kuwabara (¶0034, cold-spraying successive layer; ¶¶0032,35,36, Table 1, for instance, having stainless steel JIS SUS 304, with Vickers hardness about 129Hv, being cold-sprayed with material with over 700 Hv, to achieve to achieve strength and hardness that stays on and protects the underlying workpiece). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss with the teaching of and Kuwabara, to cold-spray a base material with a material where the difference between the first material and the second material is over 100 Hv, as taught, in order to create strong bonding between the materials, to prevent peeling, but also to achieve strength and hardness, so as to be resilient to outside forces trying to upset the connection.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244262), Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151) and further in view of Matsen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040089655
Regarding claim 25, Kayamoto in view of Sato Thuss and Kuwabara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the method further comprises:
cold-spraying the bond material onto the first joining surface and the second joining surface to form a joint between the first joining surface and the second joining surface, thereby joining the first component body and the second component body to one another (rejection of claim 1, see above);
but does not further teach a method wherein heating the joint after formation of the joint. However, Matsen teaches that it is well-known to perform a post-heating procedure on welds or joints in order to relieve the stress in the joint and increase the longevity of the joint and before it fails or breaks (Matsen, ¶0003). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara with the teachings of Matsen, to do a post-heating procedure on the joint, in order to relieve the stress in the joint and to increase the longevity of the joint before it fails or breaks apart.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244262), Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151) and further in view of Matsen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20040089655 and further in view of Mahalingam (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0009300).
Regarding claim 26, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara and Matsen teach all the limitations of claim 25, as above, but do not further teach a method wherein the method comprises heating the joint for at least 30 minutes. However, Mahalingam teaches post heating of a cold spraying process comprising heating the joint for at least 30 minutes (Mahalingam, ¶0037, “Such a heat treatment may be performed for a period of at least about 30 minutes”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara and Matsen with the further teaching of Mahalingam, to post heat the joint for at least a half an hour, in order to relieve stress and “enhance mechanical properties” once the cold-spraying has been effected (¶0036).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244262), Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151) and further in view of Calla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0301645).
Regarding claim 27, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach a method wherein the cold-spraying of the first joining surface of the first component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a first bond coating of the bond material onto the first joining surface, wherein the cold-spraying of the second joining surface of the second component body with the bond material includes cold-spraying a second bond coating of the bond material onto the [[first]] second joining surface, wherein each of the first and second bond coatings includes an inner surface that bonds to the first and second joining surfaces, respectively, and an external surface opposite the inner surface, and wherein the joining the first and second component bodies further includes bringing the first and second component bodies together such that the external surfaces of the first and second bond coatings abut one another at an interface. However, such a method spraying and connecting surfaces is well known in the art, spraying two surfaces and then connecting them, as in Calla (Calla, fig. 2, claim 1, Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara with the teaching of Calla, to join two surfaces in a conventional way, cold-spraying material on two surfaces and then putting them together so that there is a strong interface between the connected parts.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayamoto (U.S. Patent 2013/ 0292152) in view of Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244262), Thuss (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0355891) and Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160138151) and further in view of Calla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0301645) and further in view of Champagne, Jr. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160089750)
Regarding claim 28, Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss and Kuwabara and Calla teach all the limitations of claim 27, as above, but do not further teach a method comprising: welding the external surfaces of the first and second bond coatings at the interface. However, Calla does teach further processing of the created bond between the coatings (Calla, ¶0013, polishing, stress relieving, and/or grinding). However, if further bonding/welding is desired, that would be obvious, in light of Champagne, Jr. who teaches that surfaces even with a cold-spray coating may be welded for further joining. (Champagne, Jr. ¶0037, figs. 1,5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kayamoto in view of Sato, Thuss, and Kuwabara and Calla, with the further teaching of Champagne, to weld surfaces that have even been connected via cold spraying, to further process the surfaces and to make a stronger joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. New art was applied.
Contact Examiner regarding any questions or concerns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761