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 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) 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.
3. The limitations of this claim are already in the independent claim thus this claim fails to further limit.
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 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0002790 A1 [hereinafter Whitaker] in view of Morgan et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0066375 A1 [hereinafter Morgan].
The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes.
1. The following references render this claim obvious.
I. Whitaker
Method of forming a multilayered zinc alloy coating (electrodepositing zinc and nickel; Whitaker abstract, [0047]), the method comprising:
- providing a bath … including zinc and a second electrodepositable component (bath with at least two electrodepositable components which would inherently include zinc in order to electrodeposit zinc; Whitaker [0041]-[0044]) in an electrolytic cell having an anode and a cathode (these would be inherent for electrodeposition, alternatively a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Whitaker’s bath would have had these components; id.);
- applying a current or voltage between the anode and the cathode (current or voltage applied; id.);
- modulating the applied current or voltage over time between at least two current or voltage values to thereby modulate the current density over multiple cycles between at least two current density values (time varying current density which oscillates for at least two cycles; Whitaker [0045])…; and
- controlling the modulation of the applied current or voltage to obtain a multilayered structure (the electrodeposited materials comprise two or more structurally and/or compositionally different layers; Whitaker [0045], [0050]) having multiple layers of one or more of alternating proportions of the second component, alternating corrosion potential, alternating grain size, and alternating grain orientation (the Applicant’s specification teaches that the current density achieves the claimed effects and since Whitaker also teaches modulating the current density, Whitaker would also inherently have these effects; see App. Spec. [0065]), …
wherein the second electrodepositable component is one of nickel, cobalt, copper, gold, silver, platinum, chromium, lead, tin or a combination thereof (at least nickel; Whitaker [0047]).
II. Aqueous & Parameters - Morgan
Whitaker is silent on an aqueous electrolyte, wherein a first current density value is in a range of 0.3 to less than 2 A/dm2 and a second current density value is higher than the first current density value and is in a range of 0.6 to less than 5 A/dm2, and wherein one or more of the multiple layers has a thickness in the range of 1 to 10 µm.
Whitaker highlights the corrosion resistance. Whitaker [0063].
Morgan teaches a method comprising a solvent comprising water, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize would solvate electrolyte components. Morgan [0114]. Morgan teaches the method further provides modulating the electrochemical deposition discretely including using a square wave between different current densities between 0.5-200 mA/cm2 (0.05-20 A/dm2). Morgan [0009], [0024], [0096]-[0097], [0099], [0106]. Morgan teaches the method further provides the time of the first and second currents to be 0.5-25 minutes. Morgan [0108]-[0109]. Morgan teaches the method further provides laminated coatings requiring corrosion resistance between 150-5000 nm. Morgan abstract, [0015], [0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s conditions and parameters to be those of Morgan’s method comprising a water solvent, current densities of 0.05-20 A/dm2, time of 0.5-25 minutes, and 150-5000 nm to yield the predictable result of having a suitable conditions and parameters for laminated coatings with corrosion resistance.
2. Method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation of the applied current or voltage is controlled to form the multilayered structure having 4 to 12 layers (2 or more alternating first and second layers). Whitaker [0052].
3. Method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation of the applied current or voltage is controlled to form the multilayered structure having multiple layers, each having a thickness in the range of 1 to 10 µm, in particular in the range of 1 to 5 µm (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
5. Method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation of the applied current or voltage is controlled to form the multilayered structure having a total thickness in the range of 5 to 25 µm, and/or
wherein the modulation of the applied current or voltage is controlled to alternate the current density over multiple cycles between at least two different current density values, wherein each of the current density values is applied in a cycle for a duration in the range of 30 seconds to 60 minutes (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
10. Method as claimed in claim 1, wherein one or more chemical or physical parameters of alloying metal content, crystal structure and micro cracks, are controlled for forming the final layer of the multilayered structure (the Applicant’s specification teaches that current density controls these parameters and since the prior art teaches the claimed current density the prior art would inherently control these parameters). See App. Spec. [0024]-[0027].
13. Method as claimed in claim 1, … wherein the first current density value is in a range of 0.3 to 1 A/dm2 and the second current density value is in a range of 0.6 to 2 A/dm2 (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
Whitaker is silent on wherein the multilayered zinc alloy coating is formed by use of a barrel.
However, Morgan teaches that barrels are a suitable means of plating a zinc alloy. Morgan abstract, [0001], [0004]-[0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Morgan’s barrel to yield the predictable result of having a suitable means to electroplate a zinc alloy.
14. Method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second current density value is higher than the first current density value by a value difference in the range of 0.2 to 1 A/dm2 (overlaps the current density values from the claim 1 rejection).
Claims 6-7, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker in view of Morgan as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Gaydos et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0264344 A1 [hereinafter Gaydos].
6. Method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a step of forming a passivation layer on top of the multilayered structure, in particular by mutual corrosion protection reinforcement of plating and passivation layer properties, and optionally forming a sealing layer on top of the passivation layer. Whitaker is silent on this.
However, Gaydos teaches forming a passivation/conversion coating providing more resistance to corrosion. Gaydos [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Gaydos’s passivation/conversion coating to provide more corrosion resistance.
7. Method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the current or voltage applied for forming the final layer of the multilayered structure is controlled to form the final layer having a lower or higher proportion of the second component than the penultimate layer (the first layers may have first components of 1-5%, meaning the second component may go up to 99% while the second layer may have a second component from 1-35% with the second component being more than just Fe such as Ni, thus the claimed proportions fall within these ratios). Whitaker [0047], [0057].
9. Method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the passivation layer is formed from one or more of chromium oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxides, vanadium oxides, organofunctional silanes, and organic polymers (a person having ordinary skill would understand that converting with hex or tri-chrome would convert at least into chromium oxide). Gaydos [0030].
19. Method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the current or voltage applied for forming the final layer of the multilayered structure is controlled to form the final layer having a higher proportion of the second component than the penultimate layer (the first layers may have first components of 1-5%, meaning the second component may go up to 99% while the second layer may have a second component from 1-35%, thus the claimed proportions fall within these ratios). Whitaker [0057].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker in view of Morgan and Gaydos as applied to claim 6 previously, and further in view of Russell, U.S. Patent No. 3,404,044.
8. Method as claimed in claim 6, wherein one or more parameters for forming the final layer of the multilayered structure and for forming the passivation layer are controlled so that in the forming of the passivation layer the top part of the final layer of the multilayered structure is converted to form at least part of the passivation layer. Whitaker is silent on this.
However, Russell teaches that controlling the acidity and/or temperature is important as these parameters control the rate of coating. Russell col. 5 ll. 32-70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Russell’s acidity and/or temperature control to control the rate of coating.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker in view of Morgan as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Strom et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,515,663 [hereinafter Storm].
11. Method as claimed in claim 1, … wherein the first current density value is in a range of 0.5 to less than 2 A/dm2 and the second current density value is in a range of 2 to less than 5 A/dm2 (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
Thangaraj is silent on wherein the multilayered zinc alloy coating is formed by use of a rack.
However, Strom teaches plating corrosion resistant zinc alloys. Strom col. 1 ll. 6-29. Strom teaches plating on a rack. Strom col. 8 ll. 5-12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Strom’s rack to yield the predictable result of having a suitable means to electroplate a zinc alloy.
12. Method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the second current density value is higher than the first current density value by a value difference in the range of 0.5 to 4 A/dm2 (these values overlap those current density values from the claim 1 rejection).
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 Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571)270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (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.
/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794