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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/04/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
The applicant has amended claim 1 and claims 19-21 are newly added.
Currently, claim(s) 1-4 and 7-22 is/are pending examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diana Facchini of US 2010/0304182 (hereinafter, Facchini) in view of and E. Jennings Taylor of US 2001/0054557 A1 (hereinafter, Taylor), Zhiping Guo of CN 109,537,025 (hereinafter, Guo), and Daniel A. Konopka of US 2018/0019496 A1 (hereinafter, Konopka).
As to claim 1, Facchini teaches to a method for coating a turbomachine part, comprising:
depositing a paint (Facchini, paragraph [0141], teaches to depositing a paint, as Facchini teaches to applying a conductive paint) by electrophoresis (Facchini, paragraph [0141], teaches to performing an electrophoresis, as Facchini teaches to performing electrodeposition for depositing the paint) on the turbomachine part (Facchini, paragraph [0055]), teaches to aerospace parts including engine parts and rotor blades), a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles (Facchini, paragraph [0155], teaches to a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles, as Facchini teaches to performing the electrodeposition using a pulsed current and a duty cycle, which necessarily requires a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles), each of the pulsed voltage cycles having:
(ii) a ratio R [duration of the first phase]/[duration of the first phase + duration of the second phase] between 1:6 and 1:3 (Facchini, paragraph [0155], teaches to a ratio R between 1:6 and 1:3, as Facchini teaches to a method of pulse electrodeposition wherein a suitable duty cycle is in the range of 25% to 100%).
Facchini does not explicitly teach to a paint containing chromium in oxidation state +III.
In an analogous art, Taylor teaches to a paint containing chromium in oxidation state +III (Taylor, paragraph [0046], teaches to a chromium layer containing trivalent chromium).
Both Facchini and Taylor relate to electrodepositing metals using pulse reverse current (Taylor, paragraph [0003]). Facchini does not explicitly teach coating chromium in oxidation state +III. Facchini does teach teach using chromium for industrial coating (Facchini, paragraph [0003]), wherein Facchini teaches toxicity of chromium in oxidation state +VI (Facchini, paragraph [0004]). Taylor also teaches the toxicity of chromium in oxidation state +VI (Taylor, paragraph [0015]). Taylor teaches both environmental and technical advantages of using chromium in oxidation state +III (Taylor, paragraph [0016] – [0022]) for pulsed reverse current (Taylor, paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini with the chromium in oxidation state +III of Taylor for electrodepositing desired metal coatings, thereby avoiding coatings that result in harm.
Facchini in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V, and an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V (Guo, claim 8, teaches to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V, as Guo teaches to two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the duty ratio of 12% and forward voltage of 6 V), and an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference (Guo, claim 8, teaches to an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference, as Guo teaches to two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the backward voltage of 3 V).
Both Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo relate to electrodeposition of coatings (Guo, paragraph [0002]). Facchini in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach the recited range of potential difference. However, ]). Facchini in view of Taylor does teach to a method of pulse electrodeposition for depositing a paint (a conductive paint is applied by electrodeposition; Facchini, paragraph [0141]) by electrophoresis on the turbomachine part (aerospace parts including engine parts and rotor blades; Facchini, paragraph [0055]). Facchini in view of Taylor does teach a duty cycle (Facchini, paragraph [0155]). Guo teaches the recited absolute values of the first and second potential differences.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini in view of Taylor with the recited absolute values of the first and second potential differences of Guo for improved electrodeposition of desired metal coatings.
Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does not explicitly teach the absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V.
In an analogous art, Konopka teaches to the absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V (Konopka, paragraph [0029], Fig. 9, teaches to the absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V, as Konopka teaches to a waveform having an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 1 V).
Both Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo and Konopka relate to pulse plating or reverse-pulse plating (Konopka, paragraph [0148]). Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does not explicitly teach the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V. Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does teach the absolute value of the second potential difference being above 2 V (Guo, claim 8, teaches 3 V). Konopka teaches to Konopka teaches to a waveform having an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V. Using the absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 2 V, instead of 3 V, was known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the known claimed elements as claimed by known methods of Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., improving control over surface morphology of the coatings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini in view of Taylor and Guo with the voltage of Konopka for increased control the electrodeposition of coatings.
As to claim 2, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the absolute value of the first potential differences is from 0.1 to 15 V (two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the duty ratio of 12% and forward voltage of 6 V; Guo, claim 8).
As to claim 3, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 2, wherein the absolute value of the first potential difference is from 0.1 to 10 V (two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the duty ratio of 12% and forward voltage of 6 V; Guo, claim 8).
As to claim 4, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 3, wherein the absolute value of the first potential difference is from 0.1 to 7 V (two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the duty ratio of 12% and forward voltage of 6 V; Guo, claim 8).
As to claim 7, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the ratio R is between 1:6 and 1:4 (Facchini, paragraph [0155], teaches to wherein the ratio R is between 1:6 and 1:4, as Facchini teaches to a method of pulse electrodeposition wherein a suitable duty cycle is in the range of 25% to 100%).
As to claim 8, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the pulsed voltage cycles are repeated with a frequency less than or equal to 1 kHz during the deposition by electrophoresis (Guo, claim 8, teaches to wherein the pulsed voltage cycles are repeated with a frequency less than or equal to 1 kHz during the deposition by electrophoresis, as Guo teaches to two-way pulse deposition parameter being: 10~14 Hz of positive frequencies and reverse frequency is 10~15 Hz).
As to claim 9, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 8, wherein said frequency is less than or equal to 100 Hz (Guo, claim 8, teaches to wherein said frequency is less than or equal to 100 Hz, as Guo teaches to a two-way pulse deposition parameter being: 10~14 Hz of positive frequencies and reverse frequency is 10~15 Hz).
As to claim 10, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the paint is inorganic (Guo, claim 1, teaches to wherein the paint is inorganic, as Guo teaches to the matrix of the metallic composite may be stainless, titanium alloy, or cobalt-base alloys, magnesium alloys, or Kirsite).
As to claim 11, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the paint is an anti-corrosion paint comprising one or more anti-corrosion pigments (Guo, claim 1, teaches to wherein the paint is an anti-corrosion paint comprising one or more anti-corrosion pigments, as Guo teaches to a metal composite material containing an anti-corrosion coating).
As to claim 12, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the part is an aircraft turbomachine part (Facchini, paragraphs [0032] and [0055], teaches to wherein the part is an aircraft turbomachine part, as Facchini teaches to aerospace applications and rotor blades).
As to claim 13, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 12, wherein the aircraft turbomachine part is a turbomachine blade, a turbine shaft or a portion of the turbine shaft, or a compressor shaft or a portion of the compressor shaft (Facchini, paragraph [0055], teaches to wherein the aircraft turbomachine part is a turbomachine blade, a turbine shaft or a portion of the turbine shaft, or a compressor shaft or a portion of the compressor shaft, as Facchini teaches to rotor blades).
As to claim 14, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise metal phosphates (Guo, paragraph [0012], teaches to wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise metal phosphates, as Guo teaches to the composite coating comprising an oxide ceramic layer and a calcium phosphate slat layer).
As to claim 15, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise metal chromates (Taylor, paragraph [0047], teaches to wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise metal chromates, as Taylor teaches that metal chromates used in the electroplating are free from the undesired interactions with hydroxide ions).
As to claim 17, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 11, wherein aluminum particles are added to the one or more anti-corrosion pigments (Facchini, paragraph [0104], teaches to wherein aluminum particles are added to the one or more anti-corrosion pigments, as Facchini teaches Al particulate additions).
As to claim 18, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 8, wherein said frequency is less than or equal to 5 Hz (Taylor, paragraph [0064], teaches to wherein said frequency is less than or equal to 5 Hz, as Taylor teaches frequency from about 5 Hz to about 700 Hz;).
As to claim 19, Facchini teaches to a method for coating a turbomachine part, comprising:
depositing a paint (Facchini, paragraph [0141], teaches to depositing a paint, as Facchini teaches to applying a conductive paint) by electrophoresis (Facchini, paragraph [0141], teaches to performing an electrophoresis, as Facchini teaches to performing electrodeposition for depositing the paint) on the turbomachine part (Facchini, paragraph [0055]), teaches to aerospace parts including engine parts and rotor blades), a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles (Facchini, paragraph [0155], teaches to a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles, as Facchini teaches to performing the electrodeposition using a pulsed current and a duty cycle, which necessarily requires a voltage between the part and a counter electrode being controlled during the deposition by imposing a sequence of pulsed voltage cycles), each of the pulsed voltage cycles having:
(ii) a ratio R [duration of the first phase]/[duration of the first phase + duration of the second phase] between 1:6 and 1:3 (Facchini, paragraph [0155], teaches to a ratio R between 1:6 and 1:3, as Facchini teaches to a method of pulse electrodeposition wherein a suitable duty cycle is in the range of 25% to 100%).
Facchini does not explicitly teach to a paint containing chromium in oxidation state +III.
In an analogous art, Taylor teaches to a paint containing chromium in oxidation state +III (Taylor, paragraph [0046], teaches to a chromium layer containing trivalent chromium).
Both Facchini and Taylor relate to electrodepositing metals using pulse reverse current (Taylor, paragraph [0003]). Facchini does not explicitly teach coating chromium in oxidation state +III. Facchini does teach teach using chromium for industrial coating (Facchini, paragraph [0003]), wherein Facchini teaches toxicity of chromium in oxidation state +VI (Facchini, paragraph [0004]). Taylor also teaches the toxicity of chromium in oxidation state +VI (Taylor, paragraph [0015]). Taylor teaches both environmental and technical advantages of using chromium in oxidation state +III (Taylor, paragraph [0016] – [0022]) for pulsed reverse current (Taylor, paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini with the chromium in oxidation state +III of Taylor for electrodepositing desired metal coatings, thereby avoiding coatings that result in harm.
Facchini in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V, and an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V (Guo, claim 8, teaches to (i) a first voltage stabilization phase during which a first potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, and a second voltage stabilization phase during which a second potential difference is imposed between the part and the counter electrode, an absolute value of the first potential difference being between 0.1 V and 30 V, as Guo teaches to two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the duty ratio of 12% and forward voltage of 6 V), and an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference (Guo, claim 8, teaches to an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than the absolute value of the first potential difference, as Guo teaches to two-way pulse deposition parameter being: the backward voltage of 3 V).
Both Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo relate to electrodeposition of coatings (Guo, paragraph [0002]). Facchini in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach the recited range of potential difference. However, ]). Facchini in view of Taylor does teach to a method of pulse electrodeposition for depositing a paint (a conductive paint is applied by electrodeposition; Facchini, paragraph [0141]) by electrophoresis on the turbomachine part (aerospace parts including engine parts and rotor blades; Facchini, paragraph [0055]). Facchini in view of Taylor does teach a duty cycle (Facchini, paragraph [0155]). Guo teaches the recited absolute values of the first and second potential differences.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini in view of Taylor with the recited absolute values of the first and second potential differences of Guo for improved electrodeposition of desired metal coatings.
Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does not explicitly teach wherein the pulsed voltage cycles are repeated with a frequency less than or equal to 2 Hz during the deposition by electrophoresis.
In an analogous art, Konopka teaches to wherein the pulsed voltage cycles are repeated with a frequency less than or equal to 2 Hz during the deposition by electrophoresis (Konopka, paragraph [0029], Fig. 9, teaches to wherein the pulsed voltage cycles are repeated with a frequency less than or equal to 2 Hz during the deposition by electrophoresis, as Konopka teaches to a waveform having an absolute value of the second potential difference being less than or equal to 1 V).
Both Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo and Konopka relate to pulse plating or reverse-pulse plating (Konopka, paragraph [0148]). Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does not explicitly teach the frequency less than or equal to 2 Hz. Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo does teach the frequency from about 5 Hz to about 700 Hz (Taylor, paragraph [0064]). Konopka teaches to Konopka teaches to frequency equal to 2 Hz. Using the frequency of 2 Hz, instead of 5 Hz, for pulsed reverse plating was known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the known claimed elements as claimed by known methods of Facchini in view of Taylor and Guo with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., improving control over surface morphology of the coatings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Faccini in view of Taylor and Guo with the voltage of Konopka for increased control the electrodeposition of coatings.
As to claim 20, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the turbomachine part on which the paint is deposited is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, steel or a nickel-or cobalt-based superalloy (Facchini, claim 18, teaches to wherein the turbomachine part on which the paint is deposited is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, steel or a nickel-or cobalt-based superalloy, as Facchini teaches that the substrate material to be on which the electrodeposition is performed may consist of aluminum alloys).
As to claim 21, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the turbomachine part is a turbomachine blade, a turbine shaft or a portion of the turbine shaft, or a compressor shaft or a portion of the compressor shaft (Facchini, paragraph [0055], teaches to wherein the turbomachine part is a turbomachine blade, a turbine shaft or a portion of the turbine shaft, or a compressor shaft or a portion of the compressor shaft, as Facchini teaches to aerospace parts including engine parts and rotor blades).
As to claim 22, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the deposited paint is between 35 µm and 70 µm (Facchini, paragraph [0056], teaches to wherein a thickness of the deposited paint is between 35 µm and 70 µm, as Facchini teaches to a thickness between 5 micron and 2.5 mm).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diana Facchini of US 2010/0304182 (hereinafter, Facchini) in view of and E. Jennings Taylor of US 2001/0054557 A1 (hereinafter, Taylor), Zhiping Guo of CN 109,537,025 (hereinafter, Guo), and Daniel A. Konopka of US 2018/0019496 A1 (hereinafter, Konopka), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further in view of Klaus-Peter Klos of US 2005/0031894 A1 (hereinafter, Klos).
As to claim 16, Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise halogen-zirconates.
In an analogous art, Klos teaches to the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise halogen-zirconates (Klos, paragraph [0091], teaches to wherein the one or more anti-corrosion pigments comprise halogen-zirconates, as Klos teaches that the dopant can comprise fluorozirconic acid and salts thereof).
Both Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka and Klos relate to coating (mineral coating; Klos, paragraph [0077]). Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka does not explicitly teach halogen-zirconates Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka does teach using Zr as one of the metallic materials used for alloying (Facchini, paragraph [0102]). Klos teaches that mineral coating can enhance the surface characteristics of the metal by increasing resistance to corrosion (Klos, paragraph [0077]). Klos teaches that the silicate medium is modified to include at least one dopant material, wherein the dopant material includes fluorozirconic acid and the salts thereof, such as H¬2ZrF6 (Klos, paragraph [0091]). Klos teaches that at least one dopant can be co-deposited along with at least one mineral (Klos, paragraph [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Facchini in view of Taylor, Guo, and Konopka with the halogen-zirconates of Klos for coating with dopants, wherein the dopants can be useful for building additional thickness of the electrodeposited mineral layer (Klos, paragraph [0094]), or for enhancing the mineral layer formation rate, modifying the chemistry and/or physical properties of the resultant layer, among others (Klos, paragraph [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-9 of 9, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Diana Facchini of US 2010/0304182 (hereinafter, Facchini) in view of and E. Jennings Taylor of US 2001/0054557 A1 (hereinafter, Taylor), Zhiping Guo of CN 109,537,025 (hereinafter, Guo), and Daniel A. Konopka of US 2018/0019496 A1 (hereinafter, Konopka).
Claims 19-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diana Facchini of US 2010/0304182 (hereinafter, Facchini) in view of and E. Jennings Taylor of US 2001/0054557 A1 (hereinafter, Taylor), Zhiping Guo of CN 109,537,025 (hereinafter, Guo), and Daniel A. Konopka of US 2018/0019496 A1 (hereinafter, Konopka).
Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794