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 .
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 13-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the coating system” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the laser cladding process in step (3) is conducted by using a high deposition rate which is in a range between 500 cm2/min and 1200 cm2/min” is indefinite. It is unclear what is deposited, and what the high deposition rate relates to, since no depositing step is disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “said post-treatment process comprising a step in which a diffusion layer is produced by using a nitrocarburizing process” is indefinite. It is unclear what active steps are required in the post-treatment process and the nitrocarburizing process. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “said post-treatment process comprising a nitrocarburizing process and oxidation process” is indefinite. It is unclear what active steps are required in the nitrocarburizing process and oxidation process. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation in this claim is direct to the intended function of a substrate, which is a component of a final product. The claimed invention is producing the final product with the substate. Therefore the intended function of a component does not further limit the manufacturing method of the final product.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FEDORCIUC-ONISA (WO 2013/113853).
Regarding claim 1, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches a method to produce a wear and corrosion resistant coating system onto a surface of a substrate (see abstract “The invention relates to a method for cladding a rotation symmetric steel rolling mill roll substrate with a wear and corrosion resistant metal coating”), the method comprising the following steps:
(1) providing the substrate having the surface to be coated with the coating system (see page 2, lines 3-4 “cleaning the substrate by machining the surface of the substrate to be coated”),
(2) selecting a dedicated material for producing one or more coating layers of the coating system (page 2, lines 15-22 “the top layer is a cobalt alloy, wherein the cobalt alloy comprises between 27 and 32% Cr, 4 to 6% W, 0.9 to 1.4% C, 1 to 2 % Fe, 1 to 3% Ni, up to 1% Mn, up to 1% Mo, up to 0.1% B, up to 0.01% O, up to 0.02% S, and balance Co and inevitable impurities; wherein the intermediate layer is a nickel alloy, wherein the nickel alloy comprises between 15 to 17% Mo, 14.5 to 16.5% Cr, 4 to 7% Fe, 3-4.5% W, up to 2% Mn, up to 0.1% C, up to 0.05% P, up to 0.02% S, up to 0.5% V and balance Ni and inevitable impurities. All percentages are in weight%.”),
(3) producing onto the substrate surface to be coated one or more coating layers of the coating system by using a laser cladding process, wherein the dedicated material selected in step (2) is used as a source material for the production of the coating layers (see page 2, lines 6-14 “forming a melt pool on the surface of the rotating substrate by means of a laser beam and applying the first coating layer by feeding a first powder material into the melt pool, wherein the first powder material is fed into the melt pool coaxially with the laser beam; forming a melt pool on the surface of the substrate provided with the first coating layer by means of the laser beam and applying the second coating layer by feeding a second powder material into the melt pool, wherein the second powder material is fed into the melt pool coaxially with the laser beam.”),
wherein for conducting step (3) a laser beam is positioned with respect to the substrate surface to be coated in such a manner that an angle is formed between the laser beam and the substrate surface to be coated, and this angle is called a coating angle, and the coating angle is maintained during the production of the one or more coating layers at a value between 10° and 30° (page 3, lines 19-22 “The nozzle may be inclined with respect to the target surface and the angle between the laser beam and the perpendicular of the surface. Preferably said angle is between 0 and 45°. Excellent results were obtained with an angle of inclination between 20 and 35°.”), and
wherein the substrate or at least the surface of the substrate is made of an iron-based material or a steel material (page 2, line 23-24 “The method according to the invention applies a crack-free laser deposited second coating layer onto the iron or steel substrate onto an intermediate layer”).
Regarding claim 2, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches the substrate material is a cast iron material (page 3, line 25 “It was found that this method can be beneficially used for cast steel substrates”).
Regarding claim 3, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches the substrate is a brake disc [Examiner’s note: This is the intended function of the substrate, which is a component of a final product. The claimed invention is producing the final product with the substate. Therefore the intended function of a component does not further limit the manufacturing method of the final product. The substate of FEDORCIUC-ONISA can be used as brake disc.]
Regarding claims 9 and 11, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches the coating system consists of the only one coating layer produced by using laser cladding [Examiner’s note: Examiner interpreted the combination of top coat and intermediate coat is one comprehensive coating layer).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches the coating system consists of the two or more coating layers (top coat and intermediate coat) produced by using laser cladding.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FEDORCIUC-ONISA in view of Retting (US 2020/0072307).
Regarding claim 4, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches optimizing the laser process by adjusting feeding rate, speed, power, nozzle inclination angle (page 3, lines 27-28), but does not explicitly teach the laser cladding process in step (3) is conducted by implementation of high laser power levels which are in a range between 10 kW and 30 kW.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the laser power level in the laser cladding process in a range between 10kW and 30kW (which is a recommend power level of laser processing as disclosed in evidential reference US20200072307), in order to provide a suitable power level for laser processing to improve the processing efficiency, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 UPSQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 5, FEDORCIUC-ONISA teaches optimizing the laser process by adjusting feeding rate, speed, power, nozzle inclination angle (page 3, lines 27-28), but does not explicitly teach the laser cladding process in step (3) is conducted by using high process speeds which are in a range between 100 m/min and 200 m/min.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the laser process speeds which are in a range between 100 m/min and 200 m/min (which is a recommend process speeds of laser processing as disclosed in evidential reference US20200072307), in order to provide a suitable processing speed for laser processing to improve the processing efficiency, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 UPSQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FEDORCIUC-ONISA.
Regarding claim 6, FEDORCIUC-ONISA does not explicitly teach the laser cladding process in step (3) is conducted by using a high deposition rate which is in a range between 500 cm2/min and 1200 cm2/min.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the deposition rate in a range between 500 cm2/min and 1200 cm2/min, in order to provide a desired deposition rate for laser cladding process to produce desired product, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 UPSQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FEDORCIUC-ONISA in view of Kawasaki (US 2009/0151163).
Regarding claim 7, FEDORCIUC-ONISA does not explicitly teach before conducting the step (3), a pre-treatment process is conducted, said pre-treatment process comprising a step in which graphite lamellae are reduced or removed from the substrate for increasing weldability of the substrate material.
However, Kawasaki teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cladding method comprising a step for removing graphite from a substrate before the cladding process (See para.[0005] “a method has been proposed in which the surface of cast iron material to be formed with the clad layer is blasted before being clad to remove, in advance, the graphite that is present in the surface part of cast iron material, and the clad layer is formed in the surface part from which the graphite has been removed (for example, refer to Patent Document 1)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the method of FEDORCIUC-ONISA by adding a step for removing graphite from a substrate before the cladding process as taught by Kawasaki, in order to avoid gas defects such as pinholes or blowholes may be produced in the formed valve seat (para.[0003] of Kawasaki)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of FEDORCIUC-ONISA and Kawasaki in view of Vijay (US 2015/0315714).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of FEDORCIUC-ONISA and Kawasaki does not explicitly teach the pre-treatment process involves surface activation of the substrate material by using a pulsed fluid jet process.
However, Vijay teaches in the same field of endeavor of a method for removing material comprising using a pulsed fluid jet process to remove material on a surface (See para.[0143] “The coating removal stage may be performed using pulsed or continuous fluid jets, and with or without an abrasive entrained into the fluid jet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the method of the modification of FEDORCIUC-ONISA and Kawasaki by using a pulsed fluid jet process to remove material on a surface as taught by Vijay, in order to conventional method to remove material on a surface, since applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FEDORCIUC-ONISA in view of Mettrick (US 2019/0011004).
Regarding claims 13-14, FEDORCIUC-ONISA does not explicitly teach after conducting the step (3), a post-treatment process is conducted, said post-treatment process comprising a step in which a diffusion layer is produced by using a nitrocarburizing process, and oxidation process, in order to protect the uncoated surfaces of the substrate and improve corrosion and wear resistance of uncoated surfaces of the substrate.
However, Mettrick teaches in the same field of endeavor of a method of processing brake rotor, comprising a ferritic nitrocarburizing (FNC) process and oxidation process after the casting step to provide for the diffusion of N, C, B, and/or O into the brake rotor, in order to enhance wear and corrosion resistance (See para.[0055], [0059], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the method of FEDORCIUC-ONISA by adding a step of a ferritic nitrocarburizing (FNC) process and oxidation process as taught by Kawasaki, in order to enhance wear and corrosion resistance of the substate (para.[0064] of Mettrick)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761