DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11-19-2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is made final.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaudonnet (8,764,514) in view of Bush et al. (3,073,022) and further in view of Lemke et al. (2015/0231763). Beaudonnet discloses a method of peening a steel component (specimen; col. 5, line 47) comprising impacting a first plurality of peening bodies comprising ceramic beads with a relative density of 4.6 (col. 5, lines 49-50) on the component to increase compressive residual stress (col. 1, lines 14-17 and col. 5, lines 52-53) in a first peening step with a coverage of about 120% to about 205% (125%; col. 4, lines 64-65) and in a second peening step impacting a second plurality of peening bodies comprising ceramic Z210 beads (col. 5, lines 51-52) on the component with a coverage of about 120% to about 205% (125%; col. 4, lines 64-65). Beaudonnet does not recite that the second peening step is at a lesser intensity than the first peening step. Bush teaches (col. 2, lines 70-72 and col. 3, lines 1-11) that when a first shot peening treatment is conducted at an intensity of 0.016-0.034A inches (0.406-0.8636 mmA) and thereafter a second shot peening treatment is conducted at a lesser intensity of 0.003-0.0011A inches (0.0762-0.2794 mmA) fatigue life of a metal part is increased (Group A,B,C, “FATIGUE TEST RESULTS”; col. 3, lines 65-67). Regarding claim 11, Bush teaches that the first intensity is 0.016-0.034A inches (0.406-0.8636 mmA). Regarding claim 12, Bush teaches that the first intensity is 0.016-0.034A inches (0.406-0.8636 mmA). Regarding claim 13, Bush teaches that the first intensity 0.034A inches (0.406-0.8636 mmA) is greater than the second intensity 0.003-0.0011A inches (0.0762-0.2794 mmA). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to peen the steel component of Beaudonnet at a lower intensity in the second peening step as taught by Bush in order to improve a fatigue life of the part.
Beaudonnet discloses (col. 4, lines 58-60) that a projection nozzle is used to peen a steel target component but does not specifically recite a supporting step on a mounting structure. Lemke teaches (Fig. 1) that a mounting structure comprising an air blasting cabinet ([0039], lines 5-7) is configured to support a nozzle and a target component at a working distance for peening. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to mount the nozzle and target component of Beaudonnet in a blasting cabinet as taught by Lemke so that the balls strike the target and are contained for further use.
Regarding claim 2, Beaudonnet discloses that the ceramic material is a high-density ceramic material (col. 3, lines 40-42).
Regarding claims 3-6, Beaudonnet discloses a high strength steel component (92V45; col. 5, line 47). 92V45 steel has a Vickers HV of about 595 and the ceramic beads have a hardness of more than 700 HV (col. 1, lines 57-61) wherein each of the first ceramic bead hardness and second ceramic bead hardness is about 800-1200 HV (900-1100 HV; col. 1, lines 60-61).
Regarding claims 7-10, Beaudonnet discloses that the first ceramic bead (medium 3, Table 1) is different from the second ceramic bead (medium 2, Table 1). The first ceramic bead has a diameter from about 500-900 µm (900 µm; col. 6, line 1) and the second ceramic bead has a smaller diameter from about 300-600 µm (255 µm; col. 6, line 4). Applicant is using “about” language for the ranges in claims 9 and 10 and the Examiner considers 255 µm to be about 300 µm since the range is not exact and Beaudonnet discloses that the ceramic beads are tested in a range of 425-600 µm (col. 4, lines 55-57) which overlaps the ranges in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding claim 14, Beaudonnet discloses that a component is peened (col. 1, lines 20-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawanami et al. (5,409,415) teaches a high-density ceramic peening body (zirconia; col. 2, lines 27-29 and col. 4, lines 30-40) having a Vickers hardness of 1000 HV to 1500 HV (1000-1500 kgf/mm2; col. 2, lines 29-30 and col. 5, lines 8-20).
Laurence et al. (5,596,912) teaches a first peening by impacting a plurality of peening bodies (col. 12, lines 50-54) comprising ceramic shot having an average diameter of about 425-850 µm (Grade B20 and B30) and a second peening by impacting a plurality of peening bodies (col. 13, lines 4-7) comprising ceramic shot having an average diameter of about 125-250 µm (Grade B60). The steel material that is peened is AISI 410 alloy stainless steel having a Rockwell hardness of 38-45 (Rockwell C; col. 14, lines 52-55) which is about 361-448 HV (Vickers hardness). Laurence discloses a variety of shot sizes (col. 15, lines 30-48).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights