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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 18 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of the Inventions I and II are directed to features of optimized metallic thermal spray coating and comprise a particular particle size distribution. Applicant asserts that a serious search burden would not be imposed on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive.
As set forth in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 21 July 2025, a serious search and/or examination burden would exist if restriction were not required. In particular, the Examiner set forth that the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions requires different fields of search; and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention.
For example, the different groups, while having some shared limitations, each possess further limitations that necessitate different fields of search. The differences in classification also support that these inventions have recognized divergent subject matter. Finally, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention due to the divergent subject matter and differences in the claimed inventions.
Nonetheless, the Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s right to request rejoinder of the non-elected claims upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 September 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2023 and 30 July 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,965,251 (Wang) in view of CN 110480424 (CN ‘424).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, Wang is directed to a fluid tight, fully-densified coating prepared by a High Velocity Oxygen Fuel (HVOF) process that dilutes oxygen with an inert gas. (Abstract) In a first aspect, a one-step method for creating a thin, fluid-tight, as-deposited coating without sealing the as-deposited, comprising producing a substrate; providing a powder feedstock having a particle size ranging from 1 to 15 microns; providing a thermal spray torch, said thermal spray torch comprising a combustion chamber with a comprising a nozzle downstream of the combustion chamber; introducing a fuel into the combustion chamber; pre-mixing oxygen gas with an inert gas to produce diluted oxygen gas, wherein the pre-mixing occurs prior to the oxygen gas entering the combustion chamber, and wherein a flow ratio of the inert gas to the oxygen gas ranges from 8:92 to 50:50; introducing the diluted oxygen gas into the combustion chamber; combusting the fuel with the diluted oxygen gas to generate a flame; introducing the powder feedstock into the nozzle; contacting the powder feedstock with the flame to produce substantially molten and semi-molten droplets; and directing the substantially molten and semi-molten droplets to the substrate. (2:4-22)
The fine particle size is 1 to 15 microns. (4:46-63) The relatively fine particle size preferably has a median particle size ranging from 6 to 10 microns. (4:61-63) This represents the 50th percentile of the particle size distribution. Given the particle size range and median, the particle sizes of the 10th and 90th percentiles would overlap the claimed range. For example, the range of the prior art includes less than 5 microns. A uniform particle size would meet both of the claimed d10 and d90 limitations of the instant claims. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is established.
This reference teaches a fine particle HVOF coating, but does not explicitly set forth the surface characteristics of the resulting coating.
In the same field of endeavor of HVOF coatings, CN ‘424 is directed to a method for strengthening the surface finishing of a HVOF coating. (Lines 14-16) The method includes diamond grinding wheel dressing, including using a diamond grinding wheel surface to grind to remove the high point of diamond grinding wheel surface and finishing of the HVOF reinforced surface. (Lines 40-57) The method further includes evaluating the quality of the HVOF-reinforced surface. (Lines 59-60) The surface roughness index includes Ra≤0.1μm, Rp≤0.2μm, Rz≤1.0μm, 70% ≤Tp / Rmr (c) ≤90%, -3≤Rsk≤-0.1. (Lines 60-62) The HVOF reinforced surface quality is improved, which improves the seal effect of the device and improves oil leakage caused by seal failure during use. (Lines 97-99) This improves the performance of the coated device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the method of improving the surface quality of a HVOF coating as set forth in CN ‘424 within the HVOF coating of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including improving the performance of the coated article and improving the surface quality of the resulting coating.
As to claim 3, Wang sets forth particles containing W, C, Co, and Cr. (10:28-31) Wang sets forth the HVOF process. Wang sets forth the particle size of the HVOF coating. These processes and compositions correspond to those set forth in the instant specification for producing the claimed product. (See Paragraphs 37-38 of the instant specification) Therefore, it would be expected that the product of the prior art would meet this particular limitation.
As to claim 4, Wang and CN ‘424 do not teach the presence of pullouts. Therefore, it would be expected that pullouts would not be present within the product.
As to claim 5, Wang sets forth a substrate made of a metallic substrate formed from nickel, cobalt, iron, and copper alloys. (1:24-31) This would be a structure that is substantially free of ceramic particles.
As to claim 6, Wang sets forth particles containing W, C, Co, and Cr. (10:28-31)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784