DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-26 are pending, and claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, and 18 are currently under review.
Claims 2-3, 11-17, and 19-26 are withdrawn.
Claim 8 is cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-26 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 8/20/2025.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/22/2025s is sufficient to overcome the rejections made over Yari et al.
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, 4-7, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN105328185, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Williams et al. (2016/0032442).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Song et al. discloses additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel parts [abstract, 0046]. The examiner notes that 316L stainless steel will naturally have a Ni amount of up to 14 weight percent as recognized by one of ordinary skill, which overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Song et al. further teaches that the part is subjected to nitriding during manufacturing to achieve higher surface hardness [0022, 0046]. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that nitriding would naturally result in a surface portion having a higher average hardness and core portion having a lower average hardness by definition of case hardening.
Song et al. does not expressly teach that nitriding utilizes a guanidine moiety complexed with HCl as claimed. However, this feature would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Williams et al. discloses that it is known to perform surface nitriding using nitrogen halide salts such as guanidinium chloride (ie. GdnHCl) as a particularly useful example [0034-0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of Song et al. by performing nitriding using a guanidine chloride compound because guanidine chloride compounds are known in the art to be satisfactory and suitable nitrogen-releasing compounds for purposes of surface nitriding as disclosed by Williams et al. above. The examiner notes that a guanidine chloride nitrided surface as suggested by the aforementioned prior art would naturally meet the claimed limitation of a reagent-treated surface layer wherein the reagent is a guanidine moiety complexed with HCl having the claimed formula.
The examiner notes that the recitation of “wherein the reagent-treated surface layer exhibits less corrosion…” is an instant of functional language which does not impart any further structure other than what is already claimed (ie. a nitrided surface from a guanidine moiety complexed with HCl). Accordingly, the aforementioned combined prior art disclosure, which suggests nitriding with guanidine chloride, fully meets the claimed structure. The examiner further notes that a reagent-treated nitrided layer as suggested by the prior art combination would naturally be expected to have increased corrosion resistance compared to a non-nitrided (ie. not reagent-treated) surface by the basic mechanism of nitriding.
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach improving corrosion resistance, composition of the surface treated region, or absence of coarse precipitates as claimed. However, the instant specification expressly teaches achieving all of these effects by controlling conditions of low-temperature interstitial treatment during treatment to be 450 to 500 degrees C through nitrocarburization [0075-0076 instant spec.]. Williams et al. further teaches that treatment includes nitrocarburizing through exposing the surface to vapors of guanidinium chloride for at least 10 minutes at less than 500 degrees C by exposing the alloy to a treatment solution that is then further decomposed to vapor (ie. liquid pyrolysis product and vapors therein) [0017, 0038, 0041]. Since the prior art discloses an identical steel composition and substantially similar, overlapping nitrocarburizing treatment, similar features relative to those as claimed above would have naturally flowed.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Song et al. is silent regarding any surface porosity, such that one of ordinary skill would understand that the surface is not porous (ie. 0% porosity), which meets the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 18, the aforementioned prior art discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the instantly claimed limitations of carburizing/nitriding/nitrocarburizing parameters and instance at which surface treatment is applied are product-by-process limitations, which are not considered to impart any further structure to the claimed article other than what is already recited in the claims. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, the disclosure of the aforementioned prior art still anticipates all of the claimed limitations because no further structure is imparted by the instant product-by-process claim limitations. Nonetheless, as stated above, Williams et al. further teaches that nitriding includes exposing the surface to vapors of guanidinium chloride for at least 10 minutes at less than 500 degrees C by exposing the alloy to a treatment solution that is then further decomposed to vapor (ie. liquid pyrolysis product and vapors therein) [0038, 0041]. Furthermore, Song et al. teaches that the part is subjected to nitriding during manufacturing as stated previously.
Regarding claim 10, Song et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Song et al. further teaches selective laser melting, which meets the limitation of directed energy deposition as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill because both methods utilize directed laser energy.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN105328185, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bampton et al. (US 5,745,834)
Regarding claim 5, Song et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Song et al. does not expressly teach a further limitation as claimed. Bampton et al. discloses that it is known to perform a final stage of hot isostatic pressing after additive manufacturing to achieve complete densification and homogenization [col.3 ln.10-20]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of the aforementioned prior art by performing hot isostatic pressing as claimed for the aforementioned benefits.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN105328185, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Miyahara et al. (JPS52128847, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 9, Song et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Song et al. does not expressly teach that the article has an untreated surface as claimed. Miyahara et al. discloses that it is commonly known to provide a surface nitrided article having a groove portion which is not nitrided (ie. untreated) such that only local nitriding is achieved for columnar or cylindrical parts, for example [0001-0002]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the article of Song et al. by having untreated groove portions as desired as taught by Miyahara et al. Alternatively, the examiner submits that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the core and surface treated layer article (taught by Song et al.) by having an untreated groove portion in said surface layer (taught by Miyahara et al.) to arrive at the predictable result of an article having treated and untreated surface portions as desired depending on the particular application. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN105328185, machine translation referred to herein) and others (2020, Nitriding for corrosion and wear fatigue resistance) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kamachi et al. (US 2017/0165791).
Regarding claim 18, Song et al. discloses the article of claim 1 (see previous). Song et al. does not expressly teach that the surface treatment is applied specifically during additive manufacturing as claimed. Kamachi et al. discloses a method of nitriding of a part during additive manufacturing to improve strength [abstract, 0011, examples]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the article of Song et al. by performing surface treatment during additive manufacturing to improve strength as taught by Kamachi et al. Alternatively, the examiner submits that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the core and surface treated layer article (taught by Song et al.) by performing surface treatment during manufacturing (taught by Kamachi et al.) to arrive at the predictable result of an article having simultaneous treatment which one of ordinary skill would understand to decrease processing time and increase efficiency. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections as evidenced by Yari et al. have been withdrawn. However, the rejections made solely over Song et al. and Williams et al. without Yari et al. have not been addressed by applicant and therefore still stand.
As noted in the previous interview summary, the examiner notes that data/evidence showing unexpected/critical improvements in corrosion resistance of guanidine treated surfaces vs. conventionally nitrided surfaces would appear to overcome the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights