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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster (US 2020/0240411) in view of Wang (US 2019/0036429).
Regarding claim 16, Foerster teaches a method for treating a surface of a machine part selected from a group consisting of at least a part of a screw rotor for an oil free screw compressor and at least a part of a housing element for such oil free screw compressor (para. 0017; 0019; 0098; 0107), said method including the steps of: applying a pattern (surface roughness) onto said surface of said machine part (para. 0107); and applying a coating onto the patterned surface (para. 0019; 0107).
Foerster fails to disclose manufacturing the machine part; applying a laser to said surface of said machine part to simultaneously clean said surface of said machine part and apply a pattern onto said surface of said machine part.
Wang teaches a method for treating a surface (para. 0004; 0007) of machine part (12, 60, 60’; para. 0059-0060), said method including the steps of: manufacturing the machine part (abstract; para. 0004; 0007); applying a laser (14) to said surface of said machine part (para. 0007; 0017; 0039-0044) to simultaneously clean said surface of said machine part (some sort of cleaning is inherently done when applying a laser to the surface of the machine part) and apply a pattern (as shown in Fig. 3-4) onto said surface of said machine part (para. 0007; 0017; 0039-0044); and applying a coating (52, 53) onto the patterned surface (abstract; para. 0004; 0007; 0017; 0039-0043; 0047; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Foerster, with Wang, by using a laser for cleaning and roughening the surface of the screw compressor, to reduce processing time, and increase precision and quality. POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references because using a laser to clean and roughen the surface of a screw compressor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as reducing processing time and increase precision and quality.
Regarding claim 17, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the step of applying the pattern comprises: determining at least one path onto the surface such that the at least one path extends over the surface (Wang; as shown in Fig. 4); operating the laser in such a manner that a laser beam (Wang; 16) of the laser impacts the surface on the at least one path (Wang; para. 0044).
Regarding claim 18, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 17, wherein the laser is pointed towards the surface such that the laser beam impacts the surface at an angle of about 90 degrees (Wang; as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 17, wherein operating the laser comprises displacing the laser with respect to the surface such that an impact point of the laser beam follows said at least one path at a predetermined speed (Wang; para. 0044-0046).
Regarding claim 20, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 17, wherein the laser comprises a pulse-generating laser source (Wang; para. 0044) and wherein operating the laser comprises outputting said laser beam at a predetermined operating frequency and at a predetermined operating intensity (Wang; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 21, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 17, wherein the predetermined speed and the predetermined operating frequency are kept in a predetermined relation with respect to each other (Wang; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 22, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the predetermined relation is chosen such that subsequent laser beam spots are located at a point-to-point distance with respect to each other that is smaller than a laser surface impact diameter (Wang; as shown in Fig. 4; para. 0044-0046).
Regarding claim 23, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 22, wherein the at least one path comprises multiple adjacent path segments, wherein the adjacent path segments show a center-to-center distance which is smaller than said laser surface impact diameter (Wang; as shown in Fig. 4; para. 0044-0046).
Regarding claim 24, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the applying the pattern is parametrized to obtain an Ra surface roughness of the surface in the range of 10-100 µm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 µm (Wang; para. 0043).
Foerster and Wang combined fail to disclose wherein the Ra surface roughness of the surface is higher than 1.0µm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 25, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the coating is applied in multiple layers (Foerster, title, abstract; Wang, para. 0004-0006, 0052).
Regarding claim 26, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, further comprising applying a first coating layer onto the surface of said machine part before said step of applying a pattern (Foerster; para. 0112), and wherein said applying a coating is applying a second coating layer onto said patterned surface (Foerster; para. 0112).
Regarding claim 27, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, said coating having a composition comprising any one of polytetrafluoroethylene, amorphous graphite powder, thinner for spray cleaning apparatuses, methyl ethyl ketone, or cellosolve acetate coating additive (Foerster; para.0014; 0054; 0056).
Regarding claim 28, Foerster and Wang combined teach an oil free screw compressor (Foerster; 20) comprising a rotor (Foerster; 1, 2) and a housing (Foerster; 11), at least one of which is at least partly treated according to claim 16 (Foerster, para. 0017; 0019; 0098; 0107; Wang, abstract; para. 0004; 0007; 0017; 0039-0044; 0047).
Regarding claim 29, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 24, wherein the applying the pattern is parametrized to obtain an Ra surface roughness of the surface in the range of 10-100 µm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 µm (Wang; para. 0043).
Foerster and Wang combined fail to disclose wherein the Ra surface roughness of the surface higher than 1.3 µm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the applying the pattern is parametrized to obtain a roughness of the surface in the range of 10-100 µm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 µm (Wang; para. 0043).
Foerster and Wang combined fail to disclose wherein the Ry surface roughness of the surface higher than 10 µm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 31, Foerster and Wang combined teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the applying the pattern is parametrized to obtain a roughness of the surface in the range of 10-100 µm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 µm (Wang; para. 0043).
Foerster and Wang combined fail to disclose wherein the Ry surface roughness of the surface higher than 15 µm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that “Cited reference Foerster specifically describes a multi-step pre-treatment process in which the surface of the rotor screw is degreased by burning at high temperatures (S01), sandblasted (S02), and then chemically cleaned with acetone (S03). See para. [0151] and FIG. 12 of Foerster. Similarly, secondary reference Wang merely describes surface cleaning with respect to the application of the coatings via a gas dynamic spray or cold spray process. See para. [0050] of Wang. As such, neither Foerster nor Wang, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest "applying a laser to said surface of said machine part to simultaneously clean said surface of said machine part and apply a pattern onto said surface of said machine part" and thus claim 16 is patentable over the cited.” on remarks page 7, lines 8-18. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Wang teaches a method for treating a surface (para. 0004; 0007) of machine part (12, 60, 60’; para. 0059-0060), said method including the steps of: manufacturing the machine part (abstract; para. 0004; 0007); applying a laser (14) to said surface of said machine part (para. 0007; 0017; 0039-0044) to simultaneously clean said surface of said machine part (some sort of cleaning is inherently done when applying a laser to the surface of the machine part) and apply a pattern (as shown in Fig. 3-4) onto said surface of said machine part (para. 0007; 0017; 0039-0044); and applying a coating (52, 53) onto the patterned surface (abstract; para. 0004; 0007; 0017; 0039-0043; 0047; Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Foerster, with Wang, by using a laser for cleaning and roughening the surface of the screw compressor, to reduce processing time, and increase precision and quality. POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references because using a laser to clean and roughen the surface of a screw compressor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as reducing processing time and increase precision and quality.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 17-31, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/16/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761