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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 13 January 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8 are under examination.
Claims 9-20 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 13 January 2026.
All previous prior art rejections are herein maintained and amended in light of Applicant’s amendment filed 13 January 2026 with amended rational in light of Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections are further provided in light of updated search and consideration as a response to Applicant’s amendment filed 13 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaki et al (JP H02-298295 with citations provided to the translation provided via Espacenet attached herein).
As to claims 1 and 2, Isaki discloses A method for producing a rigid, heat-resistant part, the method comprising:
dispensing a quantity of a pre-coated particulate into a container of an electrolytic solution into a container of an electrolytic solution wherein the pre-coated particulate is a secondary alloy particulate coated with a primary alloy wherein the secondary alloy particle comprises aluminum (pg. 5 “The aluminum particles dispersed in the nickel plating bath are not particularly limited, and examples include not only pure aluminum but also various alloys such as aluminum-silicon alloy, aluminum-magnesium alloy, aluminum-iron alloy, and aluminum-zinc-silicon alloy” and pg. 6 “forming an electroless plating layer of nickel, nickel alloys (nickel alloys such as nickel-boron, nickel-boron, etc.), copper, copper alloys,”),
and
applying a charge to the electrolytic solution such that the pre-coated particulate is electrodeposited onto a cathode or an external casing of the cathode (pg. 7 “The plating conditions are a bath temperature of about 20 to 70°C, a cathode current
density of about 0.5 to 10 A/dm2”)
wherein the primary alloy is at least one of nickel, iron, cobalt, and copper (see citation above nickel alloy or copper alloy as required by instant claim 2)
and wherein the method creates a nickel, iron, or cobalt base precipitation layer (pg. 8 “nickel aluminum plating layer).
As to claim 4, the recitation is necessarily met because any deviation in any respect reads on “varying shape and varying dimension” absent further recitation as to the amount of varying or the like,
As to claim 5, Isaki discloses a shape of the cathode of a ABS resin plate, stainless steel plate, which is non planar due to the multiple surfaces of the three dimensional shape. (pgs. 6-7, 11).
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al (US 2015/0075327 A1).
As to claims 1 and 2, Werner discloses A method for producing a rigid, heat-resistant part, the method comprising:
dispensing (Fig. 1 [0046]) a quantity of a pre-coated particulate (#s 1 and 2) into a container of an electrolytic solution (#3 [0047]), the secondary alloy particles zirconium oxide ([0020], [0048])
wherein the pre-coated particulate is a secondary alloy particulate ([0048], [0049]) coated with a primary alloy ([0056]); and
applying a charge ([0053] and throughout citation to “electrodepostion” which inherently applied a charge to an electrolyte) to the electrolytic solution such that the pre-coated particulate is electrodeposited onto a cathode or an external casing of the cathode (Fig. 3 [0054])
wherein the secondary alloy particulate is a non-electrodepositable particulate that would generally dissolve in the electrolytic solution (via the specific properties of the particulate)
wherein the primary alloy is at least one of nickel, iron, cobalt, and copper ([0056])
and wherein the method creates a nickel, iron, or cobalt base precipitation layer ([0053] “NiCo matrix”)
Werner discloses explicitly the coating comprising “nickel and/or cobalt” ([0056] as required by instant claim 2), thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nickel/cobalt alloy layer that dissolves into the matrix layer when nickel/cobalt are used as the matric material ([0047])
As to claim 3, Werner discloses the inclusion of additional hard particles ([0049]) thus are considered to be further grain growth inhibitors or recrystallization inhibitor absent further recitation as to their specific chemical make up.
As to claim 4, the recitation is necessarily met because any deviation in any respect reads on “varying shape and varying dimension” absent further recitation as to the amount of varying or the like,
As to claim 5, Werner discloses a shape 4 of the cathode which is non planar due to the multiple surfaces of the three dimensional shape.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Krasikov et al (Krasikov, A.V. et. al., Influence of Vibration Parameters during Electrodeposition of Ni-SiC Composite Coatings from a Vibration Stabilized Suspension, Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, April 20, 2022, pp. 300-305. Vol. 51, No. 4, Moscow, Russia, as provided with the IDS dated 27 August 2024).
As to claims 6 and 7, Werner fails to explicitly disclose vibrating the container during the steps of dispensing the quantity of the pre-coated particulate and applying the charge to the electrolytic solution (instant claim 6) and wherein vibrating the container comprises applying a high amplitude, low frequency vibration to at least one of the container and the electrolytic solution. (instant claim 7 note: based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of instant claim 7, the recitation “vibrating the container” does not necessarily require movement of a container but encompasses vibration of the electrolytic solution through any means which through vibrations of the solution, causes vibration of a container to any magnitude or manner).
Krasikov discloses forming a composite material (title) via a codeposition during electroplating (Abstract) vibrating the container during the steps of dispensing the quantity of the pre-coated particulate and applying the charge to the electrolytic solution and wherein vibrating the container comprises applying a high amplitude, low frequency vibration to at least one of the container and the electrolytic solution. (Fig. 1 use of vibration stand and signal generator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a step of vibrating the container/ electrolytic solution as disclosed in Krasikov in the method of Werner because it promotes a uniform distribution of particles within the coating (Krasikov Abstract citing to the uniform distribution of SiC in the nickel plating).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Xu et al (CN 109402709 A with citations drawn towards the translation from ESPACNET for convenience)
As to claim 8, Werner fails to explicitly disclose drawing partial vacuum from within the container during the step of applying the charge, such that hydrogen is removed from the container.
Xu discloses composite plating ([0004]) and drawing partial vacuum from within the container during the step of applying the charge, such that hydrogen is removed from the container ([0024] “Vacuum treatment can fully promote hydrogen precipitation and eliminate internal stress., [0026] “By analyzing the influence of vacuum field parameters on the cathode hydrogen evolution reaction rate, hydrogen evolution amount and hydrogen content of the gradient layer and their laws, a vacuum field is added to promote hydrogen evolution reaction, improve concentration polarization phenomenon, reduce the hydrogen content of the gradient layer”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used at least a partial vacuum as taught by Xu in the method of Werner because it prevents hydrogen content in the plated layer thus promoting the bonding strength and reducing the internal stresses of the layer (Xu [0024], [0026] as cited above).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaki in view of Krasikov et al (Krasikov, A.V. et. al., Influence of Vibration Parameters during Electrodeposition of Ni-SiC Composite Coatings from a Vibration Stabilized Suspension, Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, April 20, 2022, pp. 300-305. Vol. 51, No. 4, Moscow, Russia, as provided with the IDS dated 27 August 2024).
As to claims 6 and 7, Isaki fails to explicitly disclose vibrating the container during the steps of dispensing the quantity of the pre-coated particulate and applying the charge to the electrolytic solution (instant claim 6) and wherein vibrating the container comprises applying a high amplitude, low frequency vibration to at least one of the container and the electrolytic solution. (instant claim 7 note: based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of instant claim 7, the recitation “vibrating the container” does not necessarily require movement of a container but encompasses vibration of the electrolytic solution through any means which through vibrations of the solution, causes vibration of a container to any magnitude or manner).
Krasikov discloses forming a composite material (title) via a codeposition during electroplating (Abstract) vibrating the container during the steps of dispensing the quantity of the pre-coated particulate and applying the charge to the electrolytic solution and wherein vibrating the container comprises applying a high amplitude, low frequency vibration to at least one of the container and the electrolytic solution. (Fig. 1 use of vibration stand and signal generator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a step of vibrating the container/ electrolytic solution as disclosed in Krasikov in the method of Isaki because it promotes a uniform distribution of particles within the coating (Krasikov Abstract citing to the uniform distribution of SiC in the nickel plating).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaki in view of Xu et al (CN 109402709 A with citations drawn towards the translation from ESPACNET for convenience)
As to claim 8, Isaki fails to explicitly disclose drawing partial vacuum from within the container during the step of applying the charge, such that hydrogen is removed from the container.
Xu discloses composite plating ([0004]) and drawing partial vacuum from within the container during the step of applying the charge, such that hydrogen is removed from the container ([0024] “Vacuum treatment can fully promote hydrogen precipitation and eliminate internal stress., [0026] “By analyzing the influence of vacuum field parameters on the cathode hydrogen evolution reaction rate, hydrogen evolution amount and hydrogen content of the gradient layer and their laws, a vacuum field is added to promote hydrogen evolution reaction, improve concentration polarization phenomenon, reduce the hydrogen content of the gradient layer”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used at least a partial vacuum as taught by Xu in the method of Isaki because it prevents hydrogen content in the plated layer thus promoting the bonding strength and reducing the internal stresses of the layer (Xu [0024], [0026] as cited above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Werner fails to disclose coating reactive particles containing an element now claimed in instant claim 1, this argument is not persuasive because Werner discloses using zirconium oxide as the first particle which reads on the instant claim limitations.
Applicant’s argument drawn towards the technical problem solved by Applicant are noted. However, in light of the scope of the instant claims as drawn, the broadest reasonable interpretation if the method steps as claimed read on the method of Werner based on the type of particles as those disclosed.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795