Detailed Notice
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 requires that the metal powder particles may be a “high-strength alloy”. It is understood that high-strength alloy is definite with respect to the definition provided by applicant in specification [0030] which will be used herewith.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. Specifically the applicant requires that “phosphorous” may comprise the metallic particle. This is indefinite as phosphorous is not a metal. It is unclear whether the applicant meant to include that the material may be a “nickel-cobalt-phosphorus alloy” as per [0029] of the instant specification instead. For the sake of compact prosecution, phosphorous will not be considered as including in the limitations of Claim 2.
Claim 8 is 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. Specifically the applicant requires that “growing the native oxide”. This is indefinite as it is understood that a native oxide layer is not grown, but is instead an intrinsic property of materials wherein a predefined thickness of oxide grows on the surface as a consequence of the natural abundance of O2 present in the air. Accordingly, one could further grow an oxide layer on a surface, but one does not “further grow” a native oxide. For the sake of compact prosecution it is understood that the claim merely requires there be a native oxide on the metallic powder particles.
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 1, 2, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ul-Hamid (US20170067179A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 13, Ul-Hamid teaches a method for forming a component comprising immersing a substrate (a cathode) in a solution comprising a Ni salt, NiCoCrAlY (understood to be a superalloy) particles between 0.5 and 50 µm, and Al particles 3-15 µm in size, after which point co-deposition of the particles and the dissolved metal salt occur on the substrate to form a matrix of electrodeposited Ni with trapped Al and NiCoCrAlY particles [0064-0065 and 0068]. The coated material is then calcined at 900-1200 °C [0072]. It is understood that the mandrel is merely a cathode [see instant specification [0016] and Fig. 9) and so Ul-Hamid teaches the same method.
Regarding Claims 7-9, Ul-Hamid teaches that the calcining step forms an oxidized layer on outer surfaces of the particles of Al and NiCrAlY particles in the Ni matrix after the heat treatment, which is understood to mean that the native oxide present on the coating was incorporated into the metal matrix [0038 and 0088]. It is understood that Al particles would necessarily have a native oxide on their surface. Furthermore, the courts have held broadly that under the principles of inherency, where a prior art device in its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior device, as it is assumed the prior art device will inherently perform the claimed processes (see MPEP 2112.02 I). In this case, as Ul-Hamid teaches the same heat treatment step, it is understood that the same process of oxide melt and incorporation into the matrix is occurring therein.
Regarding Claim 10, Ul-Hamid teaches that the solution can be agitated with sonication [0075].
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Ul-Hamid teaches that the cathode being worked upon may be a component in a turbine engine, such as a rings, disks, shafts, etc. etc. which are understood to collectively each comprise at least one non-horizontal surface [0063]. Ul-Hamid teaches that the solution can be agitated with sonication [0075]. Accordingly, it is understood that as the sonication causes an agitation to the solution during deposition, that the mixture solution would be directed to the non-horizontal surfaces in any of the cathode objects being electrodeposited upon.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Ul-Hamid teaches that the surface composition of the coating may have varying weight percentages of the metal particles and the electrodeposited material [0049-0061]. Prior to the filing of the present invention, it is understood that, barring a demonstration of criticality, the method Ul-Hamid would be capable of making an electrodeposit comprising mass fractions or volume fractions of the metallic powder particles in the range of 30-70% as a matter of routine optimization.
Claim 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US4601795).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, Smith teaches a method for electrodepositing on a substrate from a bath comprising metallic particles and electrolyte [abstract]. Smith teaches that a Cr powder is added to an Fe electroplating solution [Col. 4, Lines 31-44]. Smith teaches that the application of heat treatments between 800 to 1,100 °C results in alloy coatings with varying degrees of hardness and microstructure, such that significant diffusion occurs in the composite layers resulting in a martensitic microstructure [Col. 8, Lines 7-15]. Smith teaches a heat treating step at 800 °C for 1h, understood to be a first heat treatment, and annealing at 700 °C for 1 hr, understood to be a second heat treatment, produce a more ferritic microstructure [Col. 8, Lines 16-21]. Smith teaches that the heat treatment processes causes diffusion of the occluded metal particles [Col. 4, Lines 24-30]
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.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ul-Hamid (US20170067179A1), as applied to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Ul-Hamid teaches that the coating thickness may be varied depended on the process for applying the coating [0048], though Ul-Hamid teaches that the thickness may be between 50 and 200 µm [0016]. Ul-Hamid also teaches that Ul-Hamid teaches that there may be a plurality of “layers” [0047], such that it is understood that each layer could be 200 µm, in order that a coating comprise three layers would be a total of overall 600 µm. Prior to the filing of the present invention, it is understood that, barring a demonstration of criticality, the method Ul-Hamid would be capable of making a multi-layered electroformed coating which would have a layer thickness of 0.5 to 10 mm as a matter of routine optimization.
Claims 3-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ul-Hamid (US20170067179A1), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Smith (US4601795).
Regarding Claims 3-6, Ul-Hamid teaches a method for forming a component comprising immersing a substrate (a cathode) in a solution comprising a Ni salt, NiCoCrAlY (understood to be a superalloy) particles between 0.5 and 50 µm, and Al particles 3-15 µm in size, after which point co-deposition of the particles and the dissolved metal salt occur on the substrate to form a matrix of electrodeposited Ni with trapped Al and NiCoCrAlY particles [0064-0065 and 0068]. Ul-Hamid teaches that the deposited layer on the substrate is first calcined at 900-1200 °C [0072] and may be subjected to a second heat treatment in air at 1000 °C [0083]. Ul-Hamid teaches the presence of an AlNi (understood to be a NiAl) phase after the first heat treatment [0091].
However, Ul-Hamid does not teach that following the first heat treatment is a second heat treatment between 500 to 800 °C which forms precipitates in the electroformed component; the metallic powder particles; nor that the first heat treatment dissolves the metallic powder particles into a metal matrix to define a second matrix, wherein the precipitates of the second heat treatment are formed within the second matrix.
Smith teaches a method for electroforming coatings on metal and applying heat treatments [abstract].
Smith teaches that the application of heat treatments between 800 to 1,100 °C results in alloy coatings with varying degrees of hardness and microstructure, such that significant diffusion occurs in the composite layers resulting in a martensitic microstructure [Col. 8, Lines 7-15]. Smith teaches a second heat treating step at 800 °C for 1h, understood to be a first heat treatment, and annealing at 700 °C for 1 hr, understood to be a second heat treatment, produce a more ferritic microstructure [Col. 8, Lines 16-21]. Smith teaches that the heat treatment processes causes diffusion of the occluded metal particles [Col. 4, Lines 24-30].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it is understood that one of ordinary skill would find that the method of electrodeposition further comprising two heat treatments after the deposition to form a NiAl phase inside the coating, as per Ul-Hamid, was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the method of applying a first and second heat treatment, as per Smith, in order that one would arrive at a method of electroforming composite coatings which have more tunable microstructure properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759