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 .
Reopening of Prosecution
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 08/21/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Response to Appeal Brief
The appellant’s argument on page 8 of the Appeal Brief, that “wherein the at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, tungsten and tin is present in the alloy layer at 65% by weight or more based on the weight of the alloy layer. The combination of these elements in the specified amounts are not disclosed in Haghdoost. Further, the weight percentages of nickel, tungsten or tin are not present anywhere in Haghdoost” are found persuasive to overcome the § 102 rejection, because upon further consideration, Haghdoost does not anticipate the limitations of claim 1. However, the claim remains obvious under § 103 over Haghdoost.
Response to 01/21/2025 Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2025 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The applicant's arguments concerning "Monel" are not found persuasive because paragraph [0309] states that Monel is used as a coating material, which is an alloy layer. The applicant's arguments concerning acid resistance are not found persuasive because the claims are silent regarding any acid or corrosion resistance properties. The arguments concerning molybdenum are not found persuasive because Haghdoost teaches that molybdenum can be used [0006]. Furthermore, the specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation (MPEP 2164.02). The applicant's arguments concerning the scope of "alloy layer" are not found persuasive because the claims do not specify the phase in which boron must exist, e.g., whether boron is in solid solution with, or is in the form of a precipitate, or is the in the form of particles/compounds mixed therein. The transitional phrase "comprises" does not limit the scope of the claim in the manner that the applicant is arguing, as the applicant appears to be stating that the boron must be in an elemental form or in solid solution. In fact, the applicant's own specification states that boron may be in the form of a compound [0073], such as boron nitride [0074].
Status of Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-20
Cancelled: claims 21-100
Objected to: claims 1, 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 17
Rejected: claims 1-20
The previous claim objections and 112(b) rejections are maintained. As discussed above, the 102 rejections are overcome, and as such, are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A rod comprising a solid cylindrical substrate, wherein the solid cylindrical substrate comprises an outer surface,
wherein at least a portion of the outer surface of the cylindrical substrate comprises a surface coating comprising an alloy layer,
wherein the alloy layer comprises:
(i) molybdenum,
(ii) at least one of phosphorous, boron, nitrogen or carbon, and
(iii) at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, tungsten, and tin;
wherein the at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, tungsten, and tin is present in the alloy layer at 65% by weight or more based on the weight of the alloy layer.”
Claim 8 should be amended to include the comma after “nickel” and improved formatting clarity as follows:
“The rod of claim 1, wherein the alloy layer is an outer electrodeposited alloy layer and comprises molybdenum, nickel, and at least one of phosphorous, boron, nitrogen, or carbon, and
wherein the molybdenum is present in the outer electrodeposited alloy layer at 15% or less by weight based on a weight of the outer electrodeposited alloy layer,
wherein the coated surface comprises a surface roughness Ra of less than or equal to 1 micron, and
wherein the alloy layer comprises uniform and non-uniform grain sizes with an average grain size less than 2 microns.”
Claim 9 should be amended to include the comma after “nickel” and improved formatting clarity as follows:
“The rod of claim 1, wherein the alloy layer is an outer electrodeposited alloy layer and comprises molybdenum, nickel, and one of phosphorous, boron, nitrogen, or carbon, and
wherein the molybdenum is present in the outer electrodeposited alloy layer at 15% or less by weight based on a weight of the outer electrodeposited alloy layer,
wherein the coated surface comprises a surface roughness Ra of less than or equal to 1 micron, and
wherein the alloy layer comprises uniform and non-uniform grain sizes with an average grain size less than 2 microns.”
Claim 12 should be amended to include the comma after “carbon” and improved formatting clarity as follows:
“The rod of claim 11, wherein the electrodeposited outer alloy layer consists essentially of (i) molybdenum, (ii) at least one of phosphorous, boron, nitrogen or carbon, and (iii) only one of nickel, tungsten, or tin.”
Claim 14 should be corrected to the following for improved clarity:
“The rod of claim 1, further comprising an additional layer formed on the alloy layer,
wherein the additional layer comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys, nickel-tungsten alloys, cobalt alloys, cobalt-phosphorous alloys, nickel-phosphorous alloys, alloys of molybdenumor ceramics,
wherein the alloys of molybdenum include at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron, and
wherein the ceramics comprise tungsten, chromium, aluminum, zirconium, titanium, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, silicon, boron, metal nitride, a nitride, a metal carbide, a carbide, a boride, tungsten, tungsten carbide, chromium carbide, chromium oxide, aluminum oxide, zirconia, zirconium oxide, titania, nickel carbide, nickel oxide, nanocomposite, an oxide composite, or combinations thereof.” Note that the suggested amendment also changes “a boron” to “a boride” per [00136] of the instant specification, and removes “compounds of” due to redundancy with “or combinations thereof”.
Claim 15 should be corrected to include a comma after “solid particles”.
Claim 17 should be corrected to include a comma after “carbon”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys, copper, copper alloys, nickel-tungsten alloys, cobalt alloys, nickel-phosphorous alloys, alloys of molybdenum and at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron, alloys of tungsten and at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron, or alloys of molybdenum and tungsten and at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin phosphorus, iron, magnesium, or boron”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the “alloys of tungsten and at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron, or alloys of molybdenum and tungsten and at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin phosphorus, iron, magnesium, or boron” is a continuation of the list starting with “at least one of nickel…” which follows immediately after “alloys of molybdenum”. The limitation is indefinite because the scope of “alloys of molybdenum” is unclear.
Claim 13 should be amended to the following for improved clarity, which also includes improved formatting:
“The rod of claim 1, wherein the alloy layer is an electrodeposited alloy layer, and further comprising an intermediate layer between the surface of the substrate and the alloy layer,
wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more of nickel, nickel alloys, copper, copper alloys, nickel-tungsten alloys, cobalt alloys, nickel-phosphorous alloys, alloys of molybdenumtungsten, ,
wherein the alloys of molybdenum include at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron,
wherein the alloys of tungsten include at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron, and
wherein the alloys of molybdenum and tungsten include at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, tin, phosphorous, iron, magnesium or boron.”
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haghdoost et al. (US 20190186035 A1; of record), as evidenced by MTS Ferrous and Nonferrous Alloy Piping (NPL; “ERNiCu-7 Filler Metal for Welding of Monel 400”, 2018, webpage, https://web.archive.org/web/20180408054638/http://www.metalspiping.com/ernicu-7-filler-metal-for-welding-of-monel-400.html”, 2018 April 08, pp. 1-2), hereinafter referred to as “MTS”.)
Regarding claim 1, Haghdoost teaches coated articles (Abstract), and further teaches that articles may include rods, driveshafts, door actuators, window actuators, forklift rods, hydraulic cylinders, and piston rods [0282] (Fig. 19A and 19C), which meets the claimed “A rod comprising a solid cylindrical substrate, wherein the solid cylindrical substrate comprises an outer surface”.
With regard to the claimed “wherein at least a portion of the outer surface of the cylindrical substrate comprises a surface coating comprising an alloy layer”, Haghdoost teaches that the articles comprise a corrosion resistant coating (Abstract), wherein the coating comprises a metal alloy comprising a first transition metal and a second transition metal different than the first transition metal [0017].
One transition metal may be a refractory metal [0004] such as molybdenum [0006], meeting “(i)”.
Another transition metal [0004] may include elements such as nickel [0007], tungsten [0006], [0007], cobalt [0007], chromium [0007], iron [0007], and nickel alloyed with said materials including molybdenum [0007], and in particular nickel-based coating materials alloys such as those shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows a “nickel coating”, wherein a “nickel coating” is exemplified as a “pure nickel coating” [0005], which would be about 100% nickel, wherein a quantity of up to 100% nickel overlaps with the claimed range. Haghdoost also teaches a Monel 60 alloy, which contains about 62.0-69.0% Ni (see Table in page 1 of MTS), wherein the Ni content overlaps with the claimed range of 65% or more, meeting “(iii)”.
Haghdoost teaches that the composition may include boron nitride [0015], meeting “(ii)”.
In order to demonstrate overlapping ranges, the following composition will be selected, which satisfies Haghdoost’s and the claimed composition:
with regard to claimed “(i)”, Haghdoost specifies that molybdenum can be present, without requiring a specific content; as such, 1 wt.% Mo will be chosen.
with regard to claimed “(ii)”, Haghdoost teaches that Monel 60 may be used, which includes up to 69% Ni.
with regard to claimed “(iii)”, Haghdoost teaches that boron nitride may be included in the form of nanoparticles, without specifying a quantity; as such, a quantity of 1% will be chosen.
Based on the above conditions, the resulting quantity of Ni would be about 67% (69%-1%-1%), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Further yet, assuming arguendo that a preferred embodiment were to be selected, such as paragraph [0013] of Haghdoost, which states “In other examples, the second layer comprises nickel and molybdenum and the first layer comprises nickel. In some embodiments, the content of the molybdenum in the second layer is between 5 percent to 40 weight percent based on the weight of the second layer.”, if Monel 60 were to be used, the nickel content would still be close, but not overlapping with the claimed ranges.
If in the above preferred embodiment pure nickel were to be selected for the first layer, the second layer still allows for a combination of nickel and molybdenum, as well as boron nitride for the selected nanoparticles.
Therefore, Haghdoost renders the claim limitations obvious.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Haghdoost teaches the rod of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly teach that a solid cylindrical substrate has the alloy later present on all outer surfaces.
However, Haghdoost in multiple instances appreciates coating all surfaces of a substrate with the surface coating described above [0232], [0243], [0245], [0247], [0266].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat all outer surfaces of the above-described rod(s), as doing so would allow for protecting the entire rod(s) (or as much as possible) from corrosion and environmental exposure and/or wear [0220].
Regarding claim 3, the rods discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above have curved surfaces (see also, Figs. 19A and 19C).
Regarding claim 4, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics of the invention are, “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as “comprising” (MPEP 2111.03 III.). As such, the article of Haghdoost meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Haghdoost teaches that in some embodiments, molybdenum may be present in an amount of between 5-40 percent based on the weight of the second layer [0013], which overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Haghdoost teaches that molybdenum may be present in an amount of between 5-40 percent based on the weight of the second layer [0013], wherein the second layer is an alloy layer [0011], [0013], which overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
With regard to the “electrodeposited” limitation in claim 8, the limitation is product-by-process and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113). Thus, absent a clear indication of what distinct structural features are imparted by the language “electrodeposited”, Haghdoost meets the claim. Furthermore, Haghdoost nonetheless renders obvious making the layers “electrodeposited” in [0069]-[0103].
With regard to the surface roughness limitations, Haghdoost teaches similar processing methods as those disclosed in the instant specification, which are processing methods that relate to the surface roughness. For example, Haghdoost teaches performing electrodepositing, as discussed above; furthermore, Haghdoost teaches performing steps such as sanding and polishing [0192], which result in smoother surfaces; a POSITA understands that polishing is a step for increasing the desired smoothness, i.e., decreasing the roughness. As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve a smooth finish by polishing, such as by achieving a surface roughness Ra of 1 µm or less, as doing so would result in a uniform surface that is less abrasive and more cosmetically pleasing.
With regard to the grain size limitation, Haghdoost teaches microstructural grain sizes ranging from 15 µm or less, such as 0.5 microns or less [0213], which overlaps with the claimed range. Para. [0213] also discusses using a plurality of individual microstructures, suggesting that each of the individual microstructures are the same or similar, while others are different, rendering obvious the limitation of “uniform and non-uniform grain sizes”.
Regarding claim 7, Haghdoost teaches that the Vickers hardness can be greater than 600 Vickers (HV) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics of the invention are, “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as “comprising” (MPEP 2111.03 III.). Haghdoost teaches that the first and second layers may only contain nickel and molybdenum [0013], and teaches using only Ni/Mo alloys [0195], [0199], [0204].
With regard to the “electrodeposited” limitation, the limitation is product-by-process and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113). Thus, absent a clear indication of what distinct structural features are imparted by the language “electrodeposited”, Haghdoost meets the claim. Furthermore, Haghdoost nonetheless renders obvious making the layers “electrodeposited” in [0069]-[0103].
With regard to the surface roughness limitations, Haghdoost teaches similar processing methods as those disclosed in the instant specification, which are processing methods that relate to the surface roughness. For example, Haghdoost teaches performing electrodepositing, as discussed above; furthermore, Haghdoost teaches performing steps such as sanding and polishing [0192], which result in smoother surfaces; a POSITA understands that polishing is a step for increasing the desired smoothness, i.e., decreasing the roughness. As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve a smooth finish by polishing, such as by achieving a surface roughness Ra of 1 µm or less, as doing so would result in a uniform surface that is less abrasive and more cosmetically pleasing.
With regard to the grain size limitation, Haghdoost teaches microstructural grain sizes ranging from 15 µm or less, such as 0.5 microns or less [0213], which overlaps with the claimed range. Para. [0213] also discusses using a plurality of individual microstructures, suggesting that each of the individual microstructures are the same or similar, while others are different, rendering obvious the limitation of “uniform and non-uniform grain sizes”.
Regarding claim 10, Haghdoost teaches the rod of claim 9 above, but does not explicitly teach the surface roughness. However, Haghdoost teaches that when electrodepositing a coating, the electrodeposited coating may be reduced when infused with the surface coating material (i.e. the alloy coating) [0214], [0215]. Furthermore, Haghdoost appreciates embodiments in which the layer is textured, smooth, flat, or rough as desired [0227]. Surface roughening and smoothing techniques are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, such as mechanical polishing. As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any surface roughness, such as a very smooth surface, such that the surface roughness of less than 1 micron, as smooth surfaces may cause less wear to a substrate in contact with the rod, as rate of wear is a consideration for the surface coating of Haghdoost (Abstract), [0016]-[0032], [0220].
With regard to the claimed molybdenum concentration of 20% or less, Haghdoost teaches that in some embodiments, molybdenum may be present in an amount of between 5-40 percent based on the weight of the second layer [0013], which overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 11, Haghdoost teaches embodiments wherein the coating may be electrodeposited [0069]-[0098], [0100]-[0103]. Additionally, with regard to the claimed “electrodeposited” limitation, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113). Haghdoost teaches that the outer “surface layer” coating is optional [0308], which means that the electrodeposited layer on the substrate [0069] is the outer layer.
Regarding claim 12, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics of the invention are, “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as “comprising” (MPEP 2111.03 III.). Haghdoost teaches that the first and second layers may contain nickel and molybdenum [0013], and teaches using Ni/Mo alloys [0195], [0199], [0204] which may also contain boron, nitrogen, or carbon [0015].
Regarding claim 13, Haghdoost teaches using an embodiment wherein there is an intermediate layer present between a surface layer and an underlying layer [0131], wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more transition metals [0228], such as nickel alloys or other alloys [0007], [0015], [0195], [0199], [0204]. Additionally, with regard to the claimed “electrodeposited” limitation, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 14, Haghdoost teaches that the coating comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is between the substrate and the second layer, and wherein the refractory metal or compound of the refractory metal is only present in the second layer [0011]. In some examples, the first layer comprises the transition metals and their compounds [0011]. In other words, the second alloy layer is formed on top of the first alloy layer.
In addition, in some embodiments, a silane layer may be applied on top of the coating [0002], [0012].
Regarding claim 15, Haghdoost teaches that in other examples, the coating further comprises particles selected from the group consisting of PTFE, silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), silicon carbide (SiC), diamond, diatomaceous earth (DE), boron nitride (BN), titanium oxide (TiO2), single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), kaolin (Al2O3•2SiO2•2H2O), carbon, graphite, molybdenum disulfide, nickel fluoride, chromium carbide (Cr2C3), titanium carbide (TiC), titanium nitride (TiN), other nanoparticles, and combinations thereof [0015].
Regarding claim 16, Haghdoost teaches that in some examples, the coating is covered with another layer [0012], wherein the converse of that means that in other examples, the coating is not covered with another layer. As such, the second layer [0013] would be the “exposed outer layer” [0011]. In some embodiments, the second layer only includes nickel and molybdenum [0013], which meets the “excludes precious metals” limitation, as no precious metals are present. Furthermore, with regard to the claimed “electrodeposited” limitation, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113). However, Haghdoost teaches embodiments wherein the coating may be electrodeposited [0069]-[0098], [0100]-[0103].
Regarding claim 17, Haghdoost teaches that the first and second layers may contain nickel and molybdenum [0013], and teaches using Ni/Mo alloys [0195], [0199], [0204] which may also contain boron, nitrogen, or carbon [0015].
Regarding claim 18, Haghdoost teaches that when electrodepositing a coating, the electrodeposited coating may be reduced when infused with the surface coating material (i.e. the alloy coating) [0214], [0215]. Although Haghdoost does not explicitly teach that the outer surface of the solid cylindrical substrate is textured, Haghdoost does teach that using porous surfaces allows for better infiltration of subsequently applied coatings/layers [0227]. Furthermore, Haghdoost appreciates embodiments in which the layer is textured, smooth, flat, or rough as desired [0227]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to use a textured surface for the rod of claim 1 above (i.e. solid cylindrical substrate), as doing so would allow for better adhesion and/or infiltration of subsequently applied layers such as the alloy layer [0011]-[0013], [0227].
Regarding claim 19, Haghdoost teaches that when electrodepositing a coating, the electrodeposited coating may be reduced when infused with the surface coating material (i.e., the alloy coating) [0214], [0215]. Furthermore, Haghdoost appreciates embodiments in which the layer is textured, smooth, flat, or rough as desired [0227].
Regarding claim 20, Haghdoost does not explicitly teach the surface roughness. However, Haghdoost teaches that when electrodepositing a coating, the electrodeposited coating may be reduced when infused with the surface coating material (i.e., the alloy coating) [0214], [0215]. Furthermore, Haghdoost appreciates embodiments in which the layer is textured, smooth, flat, or rough as desired [0227]. Surface roughening and smoothing techniques are known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, such as mechanical polishing. As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any surface roughness, such as a very smooth surface, such that the surface roughness is low, such as below 30 microns, as smoother surfaces may cause less wear to a substrate in contact with the rod, as rate of wear is a consideration for the surface coating of Haghdoost (Abstract), [0016]-[0032], [0220].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735