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 .
Priority
The present application filed April 20, 2023 is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of US App. No. 16/751,868 (App ‘868) filed January 24, 2020.
Pending claim 1 lines 10-13 recite “etching the intermediate workpiece with an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride…while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut”.
Pending claim 21 lines 9-11 recite “etching…, wherein the etching does not create smut”.
App ‘868 is silent to these features. Therefore, the pending claims are afforded a priority date of the filing of the instant application of April 20, 2023.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed August 7, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
August 7, 2026
Amended
1, 21
New
30, 31
Cancelled
2, 10, 14-20, 28, 29
Pending
1, 3-9, 11-13, 21-27, 30, 31
Withdrawn
12, 13
Under Examination
1, 3-9, 11, 21-27, 30, 31
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments and new claims in [0006], [0021], [0037], [0040], [0057], and [0064]-[0068] (p. 6 para. 3).
Response to Remarks filed August 7, 2026
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda
The applicant argues Kuroda applies a solution to a polished cross section to observe silicon grains and Shockley preferentially removes aluminum from a high-silicon cast cylinder surface so that silicon projects from the surface and supports a wear glaze, but neither remove contaminants from a heat-treated additive-manufactured workpiece to retain an agglomerated-silicon surface for subsequent coating (p. 7 paras. 2-3).
Shockley in view of Kuroda discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (Shockley 1:69 to 2:25) with preferential removal of aluminum using an etchant with hydrofluoric acid of 0.5% to expose and observe Si grains (Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]), which achieves the etching goal of Yamamoto of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 3; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
In response to applicant's argument that Kuroda and Shockley apply a solution not to remove contaminants, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues against a technical reason why a person of ordinary skill would substitute Kuroda’s metallographic treatment or Shockley’s cylinder-bore treatment into Wu and Yamamoto while reasonably expecting the combined process to perform each of the functions (p. 7 para. 4).
Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda each disclose etching to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 3; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda are each also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if they address a different problem) of etching such that silicon particles (grains) are retained. Yamamoto discloses an etching treatment in which silicon grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2). Shockley discloses that aluminum can be preferentially removed from a silicon aluminum alloy and silicon exposed using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid (Shockley 1:69 to 2:25, 3:27-50, 64-70). Kuroda discloses observation of Si grains by using a 0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) etchant (Kuroda [0067]). Therefore, Yamamoto in view of Shockley and Kuroda render obvious the claimed low-fluoride etchant process that retains silicon particles and are proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues Yamamoto’s fluororesin is not disclosed as a primer for paint, where the fluororesin forms a functional sliding surface with protruding silicon particles, such that a paint layer over the fluororesin would change Yamamoto’s disclosed principle of operation (para. spanning pp. 7-8).
Amended claim 21 and new claims 30 and 31 are rejected over Sakata (JP H11-302762 machine translation), which discloses an Al alloy containing Si (Sakata [0024]) with controlled Si surface precipitates (Sakata [0016]) with a zinc phosphate coating (Sakata [0026]) and a two-coat coating (Sakata [0027]).
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda is maintained.
Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner
The applicant argues Rayner prepares silicon structures for a lithium-ion battery anode by etching away the aluminum matrix to isolate or expose silicon structures for recovering, such that inorganic contaminants are not removed from the workpiece surface while retaining heat-agglomerated silicon-particle surface for conversion and organic coating (p. 8 para. 4).
Yamamoto in view of Rayner discloses etching a silicon aluminum alloy to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0024], [0037], [0047], [0052]).
In response to applicant's argument that Rayner applies a solution not to remove contaminants, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues Rayner does not apply a conversion coating to the etched surface, a primer to the conversion coating, and paint to the primer, and Yamamoto’s fluororesin is its final functional sliding surface and is not a primer that receives paint (p. 8 para. 5).
Amended claim 21 and new claims 30 and 31 are rejected over Sakata (JP H11-302762 machine translation), which discloses an Al alloy containing Si (Sakata [0024]) with controlled Si surface precipitates (Sakata [0016]) with a zinc phosphate coating (Sakata [0026]) and a two-coat coating (Sakata [0027]).
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment new grounds of rejection are made over Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, Kuroda, and Sakata and over Wu in view of Yamamoto, Rayner, Woods, and Sakata.
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 30 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.
Claim 30 lines 1-2 “applying a primer coating on the conversion coating” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 30 depends from claim 1, which recites in line 16 “applying an organic coating on the conversion coating”. It is unclear how the primer coating of claim 30 relates to the organic coating of claim 1. The primer coating could be the organic coating. The primer coating and the organic coating could be different. If they are different, it is unclear how two different coatings can both be applied to the same conversion coating. Applicant’s [0066] and [0069] recite organic coatings such as primer, such that for the purpose of examination claim 30 is interpreted as the organic coating of claim 1 being further limited to a primer coating.
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece, the agglomeration decreasing an area of the surface covered by the silicon particles and increasing an area of the surface at which aluminum is exposed (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not contain smut; applying a conversion coating onto the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Shockley discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (1:69 to 2:25) processed by etching with an etchant while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (preferential removal of aluminum from the alloy and exposure of the silicon using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid) (3:27-50, 64-70).
Kuroda discloses etching with an etchant containing 0.05 of 0.5 wt.% of fluoride while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for Si grain observation) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid with 0.5% HF because this achieves the goal of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-60; Kuroda [0067]), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates (US 3,400,057).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Coates discloses immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (using conventional baths and anodizing conditions) (2:61-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the anodizing of Wu in view of Yamamoto to use a bath because that is a conventional process (Coates 2:61-70).
Claims 1-9, 11, 21-27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), Kuroda (US 2014/0158335), and Sakata (JP H11-302762 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece, the agglomeration decreasing an area of the surface covered by the silicon particles and increasing an area of the surface at which aluminum is exposed (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not contain smut.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the workpiece of Wu because exposing the Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2) is for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Shockley discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (1:69 to 2:25) processed by etching while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface (preferential removal of aluminum from the alloy and exposure of the silicon using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid) (3:27-50, 64-70).
Kuroda discloses etching with an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface (0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for Si grain observation) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid with 0.5% HF because this achieves the goal of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-60; Kuroda [0067]), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda are silent to applying a conversion coating on the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Sakata discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon ([0001], [0009]) including silicon particles disposed on a surface ([0016]) by applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (zinc-phosphate coating) ([0026]); and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda to coat the workpiece piece with a conversion coating and an organic coating for improved corrosion resistance (Sakata [0027], [0032]), where the zinc phosphate improves adhesion and controlling the coarse precipitates improves uniform attachment of the coating to the Al alloy material surface (Sakata [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (zinc phosphate) comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (Sakata [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]);
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece, wherein the etching does not create smut.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the workpiece of Wu by exposing the Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2) for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Shockley discloses a silicon aluminum alloy (1:69 to 2:25) processed by etching with an etchant containing fluoride, wherein the etching does not create smut (preferential removal of aluminum from the alloy and exposure of the silicon using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid) (3:27-50, 64-70).
Kuroda discloses etching with an etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride, wherein the etching does not create smut (0.5% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for Si grain observation) ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch using a solution of nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid with 0.5% HF because this achieves the goal of preferentially removing aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-70; Kuroda [0067]).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Shockley 3:27-50, 64-60; Kuroda [0067]), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda are silent to applying a conversion coating on the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece; applying a primer coating on the conversion coating; and applying a paint coating on the primer coating.
Sakata discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon ([0001], [0009]) including silicon particles disposed on a surface ([0016]) by applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (zinc-phosphate coating) ([0026]); applying a primer coating on the conversion coating (intermediate coat) ([0027]); and applying a paint coating on the primer coating (topcoat) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto, Shockley, and Kuroda to coat the workpiece piece with a conversion coating, primer coating, and paint coating for improved corrosion resistance (Sakata [0027], [0032]), where the zinc phosphate improves adhesion and controlling the coarse precipitates improves uniform attachment of the coating to the Al alloy material surface (Sakata [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the fabricating, employing the additive manufacturing process, the raw workpiece comprises fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the raw workpiece to the (artificial) aging process comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 125°C to 200°C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a stress-relief temperature environment prior to the heat-treating of the raw workpiece ([005], [007]-[008], [028]-[029]).
Regarding claim 30, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the organic coating comprises applying a primer (intermediate) coating on the conversion coating (Sakta [0027]).
Regarding claim 31, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the organic coating comprises applying a primer (intermediate) coating on the conversion coating and applying a paint (topcoat) coating on the primer coating (Sakata [0027]).
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Rayner (US 2012/0129049), and Woods (5,102,033).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece, the agglomeration decreasing an area of the surface covered by the silicon particles and increasing an area of the surface at which aluminum is exposed (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3); etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2);
applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (oxide layer by anodizing) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2); and
applying an organic coating on the conversion coating (fluororesin) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch, conversion coat, and organic coat the workpiece of Wu for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1) by exposing the Si crystal grains and suppressing the falling off of the exposed Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Rayner discloses a silicon aluminum alloy ([0024], [0052]) processed by etching with a fluoride etchant without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut ([0037], [0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch as disclosed by Rayner to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0037], [0047]).
Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is silent to the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Woods discloses fluoride etchant (2:28-32) containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt%) (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoride (HF) in the etchant of Rayner to be about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt% for environmentally safe disposal of the used etchant (Woods 3:16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0024], [0037], [0047], [0052]; Woods 3:5-10), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Shockley (US 3,333,579), and Kuroda (US 2014/0158335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates (US 3,400,057).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (anodizing using an electrolyte solution with a sulfuric acid concentration of 15% at a current density of 20 OA/n) (p. 3 para. 2, Fig. 5).
Coates discloses immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (using conventional baths and anodizing conditions) (2:61-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the anodizing of Wu in view of Yamamoto to use a bath because that is a conventional process (Coates 2:61-70).
Claims 1-9, 11, 21-27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO 2019/090398) in view of Yamamoto (JP H02-101181 machine translation), Rayner (US 2012/0129049), Woods (5,102,033), and Sakata (JP H11-302762 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]); and
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece, the agglomeration decreasing an area of the surface covered by the silicon particles and increasing an area of the surface at which aluminum is exposed (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3); etching the intermediate workpiece while retaining the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface, wherein the etching does not create smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the workpiece of Wu to expose the Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2) for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1).
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Rayner discloses a silicon aluminum alloy ([0024], [0052]) processed by etching with a fluoride etchant without removing the silicon particles agglomerated on the surface thereof and without creating smut ([0037], [0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch as disclosed by Rayner to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0037], [0047]).
Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is silent to the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Woods discloses fluoride etchant (2:28-32) containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt%) (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoride (HF) in the etchant of Rayner to be about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt% for environmentally safe disposal of the used etchant (Woods 3:16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0024], [0037], [0047], [0052]; Woods 3:5-10), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Wu in view of Yamamoto, Rayner, and Woods are silent to applying a conversion coating on the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece; applying a primer coating on the conversion coating; and applying a paint coating on the primer coating.
Sakata discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon ([0001], [0009]) including silicon particles disposed on a surface ([0016]) by applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (zinc-phosphate coating) ([0026]); applying a primer coating on the conversion coating (intermediate coat) ([0027]); and applying a paint coating on the primer coating (topcoat) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto, Rayner, and Woods to coat the workpiece piece with a conversion coating, primer coating, and paint coating for improved corrosion resistance (Sakata [0027], [0032]), where the zinc phosphate improves adhesion and controlling the coarse precipitates improves uniform attachment of the coating to the Al alloy material surface (Sakata [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 1250C to 2000C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses subjecting (solution heat treating) the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 4000C to 5500C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h); hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece; and subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [010]-[014], [030]-[032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses employing a laser powder bed process to fabricate the raw workpiece from an aluminum alloy having a metal matrix (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]) wherein the silicon is composed as agglomerated silicon particles that are dispersed within the metal matrix (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([011]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece comprises immersing the intermediate workpiece in a bath containing a coating material (Sakata [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a method for forming a workpiece (component) ([001]), the method comprising:
fabricating, employing an additive manufacturing process (selective laser melting, SLM), a raw workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon (Al-Si-Mg alloy) ([005]-[006], [028], [039]);
(solution) heat-treating the raw workpiece to produce an intermediate workpiece, including subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment (500°C to 550°C), wherein the first temperature environment agglomerates silicon particles disposed on a surface of the raw workpiece (Si particles grow at the expense of adjacent smaller Si particles) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]).
Wu is silent to etching the intermediate workpiece without creating smut; applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece; and applying an organic coating on the conversion coating.
Yamamoto discloses forming a workpiece from an aluminum alloy that includes silicon (p. 2 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 2-3);
etching the intermediate workpiece, wherein the etching does not create smut (silicon crystal grains are exposed with a relatively large amount of protrusion due to the etched treatment) (p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the workpiece of Wu to expose the Si crystal grains (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2) for good wear resistance (Yamamoto p. 1 para. 1)
Wu in view of Yamamoto discloses the etching of the intermediate workpiece (Yamamoto p. 3 para. 2).
Wu in view of Yamamoto is silent to a fluoride etchant.
Rayner discloses a silicon aluminum alloy ([0024], [0052]) processed by etching with an etchant containing fluoride, wherein the etching does not create smut ([0037], [0047], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto to etch as disclosed by Rayner to preferentially remove aluminum while exposing silicon (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0037], [0047]).
Wu in view of Yamamoto and Rayner is silent to the fluoride etchant containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% of fluoride.
Woods discloses fluoride etchant (2:28-32) containing 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% fluoride (about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt%) (3:5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fluoride (HF) in the etchant of Rayner to be about 0.10 to about 0.65 wt% for environmentally safe disposal of the used etchant (Woods 3:16-18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface has been considered and determined to recite a function, property, or characteristic that results from the claimed etching process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed etching process (Yamamoto p. 2 para. 2, p. 3 para. 2; Rayner [0024], [0037], [0047], [0052]; Woods 3:5-10), such that the etching being to remove inorganic contaminants from the surface naturally flows from the disclosures of the prior art.
Wu in view of Yamamoto, Rayner, and Woods are silent to applying a conversion coating on the etched surface of the intermediate workpiece; applying a primer coating on the conversion coating; and applying a paint coating on the primer coating.
Sakata discloses a method of manufacturing a workpiece from aluminum alloy that includes silicon ([0001], [0009]) including silicon particles disposed on a surface ([0016]) by applying a conversion coating onto the surface of the intermediate workpiece (zinc-phosphate coating) ([0026]); applying a primer coating on the conversion coating (intermediate coat) ([0027]); and applying a paint coating on the primer coating (topcoat) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Wu in view of Yamamoto, Rayner, and Woods to coat the workpiece piece with a conversion coating, primer coating, and paint coating for improved corrosion resistance (Sakata [0027], [0032]), where the zinc phosphate improves adhesion and controlling the coarse precipitates improves uniform attachment of the coating to the Al alloy material surface (Sakata [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses the fabricating, employing the additive manufacturing process, the raw workpiece comprises fabricating the raw workpiece employing a laser powder bed process (selective laser melting, SLM) ([004]-[006], [028], [039]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a first temperature environment of 400°C to 550°C (500°C to 550°C) for 1 to 10 hours (0.25h to 12h) ([005], [010]-[011], [030]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises hardening (quenching) the raw workpiece ([005], [012], [031]). According to applicant’s specification at [0062], “hardening the raw workpiece includes quenching”.
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses the heat-treating of the raw workpiece further comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to an (artificial) aging process ([005], [014], [032]).
Regarding claim 26, Wu discloses the raw workpiece to the (artificial) aging process comprises subjecting the raw workpiece to a temperature environment of 125°C to 200°C (150°C to 190°C) for a period of 4 to 16 hours (2h to 16h) ([005], [014], [032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses subjecting the raw workpiece to a stress-relief temperature environment prior to the heat-treating of the raw workpiece ([005], [007]-[008], [028]-[029]).
Regarding claim 30, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the organic coating comprises applying a primer (intermediate) coating on the conversion coating (Sakta [0027]).
Regarding claim 31, Wu in view of Sakata discloses applying the organic coating comprises applying a primer (intermediate) coating on the conversion coating and applying a paint (topcoat) coating on the primer coating (Sakata [0027]).
Related Art
Li (Li et al. Effect of heat treatment on AlSi10Mg alloy fabricated by selective laser melting: Microstructure evolution, mechanical properties and fracture mechanism. Materials Science & Engineering A 663 (2016) 116-125.)
Li discloses fabricating of AlSi1-Mg specimens by SLM (2.1. AlSi10Mg specimens fabricated by SLM) following by solution heat treatment at 450°C, 500°C, or 550°C for 2 h, water quenching, then artificial aging at 180°C for 12 h (2.2 Heat treatment of SLM-produced AlSi10Mg specimens).
Oketani (US 6,428,909)
Oketani discloses an aluminum-silicon alloy (1:58-67, 2:61-67, 3:1-9), etching to expose silicon gains (3:22-47), then forming a coating layer (2:1-3, 3:42-51), where the silicon grains provide sufficient wear (2:4-17, 3:52-57).
Kuroda (US 5,980,722)
Kuroda discloses an aluminum alloy containing silicon (1:7-17) manufactured by electrolytic etching to protrude the silicon from the surface (3:21-45) using phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, sulfamic acid and the like (3:55-56, 5:17 to 6:65), anodizing (3:46-49), then plating (3:50-54, 7:1-20) with excellent adhesion die to the protruding silicon crystals (4:5-7, 53-67).
Golubev (Golubev et al. Behavior of structural components of aluminum alloys during chemical oxidation and anodizing in sulfuric acid. Korroziya i Zashchita Metal., Sbornik (1957) 328-41. STN Abstract.)
Golubev discloses etching a cast Al alloy with 0.5% HF does not affect the Si phase.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights