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 Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 recite “sodium metabisulfite” having a chemical formula of Na2SO3 according to paragraphs [0027} and [0044] of the instant specification. However, Na2SO3 is also known as sodium sulfite. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claimed term “sodium metabisulfite” as well as the term “sodium sulfite” to both mean the chemical compound Na2SO3 based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 10-18 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the residual oxides" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the reaction with the oxygen and hydrogen species" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the residual oxides" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cleaning solution" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-13 and 15-18 are also rejected because they depend on vague and indefinite claims 10-11.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawes et al. US 4,496,401(Dawes), and as evidenced by WO 2020/060199 (WO199).
Dawes teaches a steel component with an oxide-rich surface layer(abstract) comprising at least 90% Fe3O4(i.e. iron oxide)(claims 13-14), and additionally comprising iron sulfide(claim 15).
Regarding claims 19, Dawes further teaches that the steel component can be automobile propellor shaft(col.2 lines 13-14), which reads on the claimed automobile part. Additionally, Dawes further teaches that the oxidized surface(i.e. oxide layer) has a black finish(col. 2 lines 51-54, col. 3 lines 1-3). Therefore, Dawes teaches an automotive part with a steel body and having a black oxide surface coating comprising an iron oxide film and iron sulfide disposed thereon. Furthermore, iron sulfide as taught by Dawes is inherently in the shapes of platelets, as evidenced by WO199 [58,112,125,141,144].
Therefore, the automotive part as taught by Dawes reads on the claimed automotive part.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al. US 4,496,401(Dawes).
The teachings of Dawes are discussed in section 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, Dawes further teaches that the thickness of the oxide layer is at least 0.2µm to 1µm (col. 2 lines 25-39). The oxide layer thickness as taught by Dawes overlaps the claimed oxide layer thickness of 1-4µm at 1µm . Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed oxide layer thickness from the thickness of Dawes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Dawes teach the same utility in the claimed oxide layer coating thickness, which is to provide good corrosion resistance to the automobile component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 10-18 are free of art rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is CN107366000(CN000). CN000 teaches a method for treating a metal surface such as carbon steel with a cleaning solution comprising an antioxidant such as sodium sulfite and sodium citrate(i.e. source of citric acid)[0024], non-ionic surface active agent(i.e. non-ionic surfactant)[0030]. CN000 further teaches that ultrasonic dispersion is applied after the ingredients for the cleaning solution are mixed(claim 1). Cleaning a metal surface with the cleaning solution of CN000 also forms a protective film on the metal surface[0017]. However, CN000 does not teach or fairly suggest using an ionic surfactant in its cleaning solution. CN000 also does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed generation of acoustic cavitation activity when applying the ultrasonic wave or that the ultrasonic wave is capable of generating claimed acoustic cavitation, therefore, also does not teach the subsequent series of reactions as recited in the instant claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733