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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 29 April 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 and 61 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8 and 61 are currently under examination.
Claims 9-20 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 29 April 2026.
New rejections are provided herein.
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, 4, 5, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaki et al (JP H02-298295 with citations provided to the translation provided via Espacenet attached herein).
As to claims 1 and 61, 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)
and heating the matrix and the incorporated pre-coated particulars (pg. 8 “When a product equipped with this nickel aluminum plating layer is used at temperatures up to 800°C, a reaction occurs between the nickel and aluminum particles, forming a nickel-aluminum alloy, which gradually improves hardness at both room temperature and high temperatures. In the present invention, by actively heating the nickel-aluminum plating layer formed on the above substrate, the nickel aluminum plating layer is alloyed in advance, thereby further improving its hardness at room temperature and high temperatures.”) Isaki discloses a nickel-aluminum with L12W structure resulting in high strength and hardness (pg. 3) which is a gamma prime precipitate.
Isaki discloses aluminum alloy secondary alloy particles but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the secondary alloy comprises at least two different elements including titanium, niobium and tantalum and where the heating results in that the at least two different elements form gamma-prime or gamma-double-prime precipitates in a nickel, iron, or cobalt base precipitation hardening alloy.
Foster discloses including particles of an aluminum alloy with titanium, tantalum, or niobium into a nickel, cobalt or iron matrix (claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used secondary alloy particles comprising aluminum, titanium, niobium, or tantalum as taught by Foster for the particles in Isaki because they are suitable for codeposition within a nickel, cobalt, or iron matric (col. 3 lines 12-20 Foster) in order to provide elements to form strengthened superalloys upon subsequent heat treatment (col. 1 lines 34-38 Foster).
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).
Claims 1-5 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al (US 2015/0075327 A1) in view of Isaki and Foster.
As to claims 1 and 61, 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”)
and heating the matrix and the incorporated pre-coated particulars [0015]).
Werner discloses explicitly the coating comprising “nickel and/or cobalt” ([0056], 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])
Werner further fails to explicitly disclose wherein the secondary alloy comprises at least two different elements including titanium, niobium and tantalum and where the heating results in that the at least two different elements form gamma-prime or gamma-double-prime precipitates in a nickel, iron, or cobalt base precipitation hardening alloy.
Foster discloses including particles of an aluminum alloy with titanium, tantalum, or niobium into a nickel, cobalt or iron matrix (claim 1).
Isaki discloses precoating aluminum particles before deposition in order to prevent dissolution of the particles (pg. 5-6 bridging sentence).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used secondary alloy particles comprising aluminum, titanium, niobium, or tantalum as taught by Foster for the particles in Werner because they are suitable for codeposition within a nickel, cobalt, or iron matric (col. 3 lines 12-20 Foster) in order to provide elements to form strengthened superalloys upon subsequent heat treatment (col. 1 lines 34-38 Foster). Futher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coated the aluminum hard alloy particles of Werner as taught by Isaki in order to prevent dissolution of the particles within the plating baths.
As to the recitation of “form gamma-prime…”, the recitation is drawn to a result of an applied heat treatment process identical to those disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, upon explicit incorporation of an aluminum titanium particles, the result of a heat treatment process inherently results in the formation of gamma-prime precipitates.
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, as modified by Foster and 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, Werner, as modified by Isaki and 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 Werner, as modified by Foster and 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 Werner, as modified by Foster and Isaki, in view of Xu et al (CN 109402709 A with citations drawn towards the translation from ESPACNET for convenience)
As to claim 8, Werner, as modified by Foster and 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 Werner, as modified by Foster and 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).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaki, as modified by Foster, 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, as modified by Foster, 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, as modified by Foster, 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, as modified by Foster, in view of Xu et al (CN 109402709 A with citations drawn towards the translation from ESPACNET for convenience)
As to claim 8, Isaki, as modified by Foster, 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, as modified by Foster, 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights