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 2 June 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are herein withdrawn.
All prior art rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 2 June 2026.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.
8U.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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2019/0128467 A1) in view of Lomasney (US 2012/0088118 A1).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method for applying a nanolaminate to a metal workpiece comprising
electrochemically depositing, by galvanic metal deposition (Title), a coating in a spatially limited region of the workpiece , is applied in the spatially limited region, characterized in that the spatially limited region comprises a weld seam. ([0002] “seal welding regions” [0011] “which is inserted a predefined distance into an expanded tube to repair an expanded part and a sealing welding part through electroplating,”) which is applied to the weld seam and in the heat affected zone adjacent to the weld seam (as required by instant claims 3 and 7as cited above).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the deposit is made of a nanolaminate wherein the coating consists of a series of at least two metallic layers, wherein each metallic layer of the coating consists of a metal or a metal alloy that differs from the metal or the metal alloy in an adjacent layer.
Lomasney discloses using a nanolaminate deposit comprising multiple nanoscale layer that vary periodically in electrodeposited species (Abstract) wherein variations in said layers of said electrodeposited species or electrodeposited species microstructure result in galvanic interactions between the layers, said nanoscale layers having interfaces there between. ([0010]) which increases the corrosion resistance when compared to a homogenously deposited layer to confine corrosion to less noble layer ([0043]-[0044], [0075]). Lomasney discloses such nanolaminate layers can be formed of any number of nanoscale layer ([0031]) on a nanoscale thickness scale of each layer ([0061]) which may be overall deposited to form a deposit on a nanometer, micrometer, and millimeter scale ([0063]). Lomasney further discloses using a plethora of different metals, such as nickel, zinc, copper, cobalt, etc. ([0058]), and specifically a NiZn alloy and NiCo alloy ([0058]).
Lomasney discloses the following dependent claim limitations which are necessary structures of the nanolaminate disclosed:
Instant claim 2: that the nanolaminate consists of an alternating series of at least two metallic layers. ([0031] “The series of non-identical layers can include a simple alternating pattern of two or more non-identical layers (e.g., layer 1, layer 2, layer 1, layer 2, etc.) or in another embodiment may include three or more non-identical layers (e.g., layer 1, layer 2, layer 3, layer 1, layer 2, layer 3, etc.)”
Instant claims 4, 8, 9: that the nanolaminate on the workpiece has four or more metallic layers in the region of the weld seam. ([0031]).
Instant claims 5, 10, 11, 12,: that the nanolaminate is galvanically applied with a single-bath technique or a multi-bath technique. ([0003],[0045]-[0048] in a single bath via variation of the deposition parameters, and [0003] “by moving a mandrel or substrate from one bath to another, each of which represents a different combination of parameters that are held constant, multi-laminate materials or coatings can be realized” multi-bath technique).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the applied metal layers of Lee as nanolaminate alloys layers that differ in the electrodeposited species in each layer as taught by Lomasney because nanolaminate deposits exhibit greater corrosion resistance than homogenous layer due to the galvanic interactions between less noble layers (See citations above).
As to the limitation “whereby both a notch effect of the weld seam and a material weakening in a heat-affected zone adjacent to the weld seam are mitigated by the application of the nanolaminate.”, the recitation is deemed to be a result of applying a nanolaminate as provided above with respect to the combination of references, and thus deemed met.
As to claim 17, Lee further discloses wherein the workpiece comprises a surface and the spatially limited region comprises a portion of the surface. (See Fig. 6 [0053] area within the seals of the 100).
As to claim 18, Lee further discloses wherein an electrolyte is provided to the spatially limited region and a seal is arranged to contact the workpiece adjacent to the spatially limited region. (#140 solution supply line [0067]).
As to claim 19, Lee discloses A method comprising:
providing a metal workpiece (#12) comprising a surface comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising a spatially limited region (See below), the first portion comprising a weld seam ([0002] “seal welding regions” [0011] “which is inserted a predefined distance into an expanded tube to repair an expanded part and a sealing welding part through electroplating,”);
applying a coating by galvanic metal deposition to only the first portion of the surface, wherein the coating is not applied to the second portion of the surface. ([0087]-[0092]).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the deposit is made of a nanolaminate wherein the coating consists of a series of at least two metallic layers, wherein each metallic layer of the coating consists of a metal or a metal alloy that differs from the metal or the metal alloy in an adjacent layer.
Lomasney discloses using a nanolaminate deposit comprising multiple nanoscale layer that vary periodically in electrodeposited species (Abstract) wherein variations in said layers of said electrodeposited species or electrodeposited species microstructure result in galvanic interactions between the layers, said nanoscale layers having interfaces there between. ([0010]) which increases the corrosion resistance when compared to a homogenously deposited layer to confine corrosion to less noble layer ([0043]-[0044], [0075]). Lomasney discloses such nanolaminate layers can be formed of any number of nanoscale layer ([0031]) on a nanoscale thickness scale of each layer ([0061]) which may be overall deposited to form a deposit on a nanometer, micrometer, and millimeter scale ([0063]). Lomasney further discloses using a plethora of different metals, such as nickel, zinc, copper, cobalt, etc. ([0058]), and specifically a NiZn alloy and NiCo alloy ([0058]).
Lomasney discloses the following disclosures which are necessary structures of the nanolaminate disclosed:
that the nanolaminate consists of an alternating series of at least two metallic layers. ([0031] “The series of non-identical layers can include a simple alternating pattern of two or more non-identical layers (e.g., layer 1, layer 2, layer 1, layer 2, etc.) or in another embodiment may include three or more non-identical layers (e.g., layer 1, layer 2, layer 3, layer 1, layer 2, layer 3, etc.)”
that the nanolaminate on the workpiece has four or more metallic layers in the region of the weld seam. ([0031]).
that the nanolaminate is galvanically applied with a single-bath technique or a multi-bath technique. ([0003],[0045]-[0048] in a single bath via variation of the deposition parameters, and [0003] “by moving a mandrel or substrate from one bath to another, each of which represents a different combination of parameters that are held constant, multi-laminate materials or coatings can be realized” multi-bath technique).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the applied metal layers of Lee as nanolaminate alloys layers that differ in the electrodeposited species in each layer as taught by Lomasney because nanolaminate deposits exhibit greater corrosion resistance than homogenous layer due to the galvanic interactions between less noble layers (See citations above).
As to the limitation “whereby both a notch effect of the weld seam and a material weakening in a heat-affected zone adjacent to the weld seam are mitigated by the application of the nanolaminate.”, the recitation is deemed to be a result of applying a nanolaminate as provided above with respect to the combination of references, and thus deemed met.
As to claim 20, Lee further discloses providing an electrolyte to the first portion ([0087]) and a seal arranged to contact the workpiece, the seal preventing the electrolyte from contacting the second portion of the surface. (seal #131).
Claims 6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as modified by Lomasney, as applied to claims 1 and 2-5 above, and further in view of Michaunt et al (US 5,544,209).
As to claims 6 and 13-16, Lee, as modified by Lomasney, disclose wherein the material being plated in Alloy609 which is a nickel chromium iron alloy ([0007] Lee). Lomasney further discloses using a plethora of different metals, such as nickel, zinc, copper, cobalt, iron, and chromium. ([0058]).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose the metal of the nanolaminate layer.
Michaunt discloses forming an alloy layer of the based metal in repairing steam vessels (col. 2 lines 21-24, col. 9 lines 9-12).
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 nickel, iron, and chromium nanolaminate deposit in Lee, as modified by Lomasney, as a suitable repair coating when repairing a base alloy with an alloy coating as disclosed in Michaunt. Such a selection of a coating material made of the same alloy as the base material is recognized for its intended use as a proper material in the steam tube application. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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