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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al (CN 111593393 A with citations drawn towards the translation provided herein via Espacenet).
As to claims 1 and 2, Hu discloses a method for self-repairing of damage to an inorganic protective layer on a metal surface (Title), comprising:
placing a metal with the inorganic protective layer having a damaged surface in a chloride ion solution, and performing self-repairing ([0055]-[0056] “The self-healing effect of MoO42- intercalated LDH films on localized corrosion of magnesium alloys was studied using SVET technology in 0.05M NaCl solution.”) ,
wherein the metal with the inorganic protective layer comprises a metal substrate ([0012] AZ91 magnesium alloy which reads on instant claim 2 and a layered double hydroxide protective layer intercalated by acid anions covering a surface of the metal substrate (magnesium-aluminum layered double hydroxide film (MgAl-LDH) [0024]); and
the acid anions are selected from the group consisting of molybdate anions. ([0024]).
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al (Chemical Engineering Journal 373 (2019) 285–297).
As to claims 1, 2, and 5, Jiang discloses a method for self-repairing of damage to an inorganic protective layer on a metal surface (Title), comprising:
placing a metal with the inorganic protective layer having a damaged surface in a chloride ion solution, and performing self-repairing (Section 2.6 “After dipping the PEO-LDH, PEO-LDH-SHS and PEOLDH-SLIPS samples in 50 mL of 3.5 wt% NaCl solution for a period of time,” which further satisfies instant claim 5) ,
wherein the metal with the inorganic protective layer comprises a metal substrate (Section 2.1 AZ91 magnesium alloy which reads on instant claim 2) and a layered double hydroxide protective layer intercalated by acid anions covering a surface of the metal substrate (Section 2.4 MgAl-LDH intercalated with molybdate); and
the acid anions are selected from the group consisting of molybdate anions. (Section 2.3 “intercalated with molybdate”).
As to claim 3, Jiang further discloses wherein the thickness of the layered double hydroxide protective layer intercalated by acid ions has a thickness of less than or equal to 30 micrometers (Section 3.5 “~3 [micrometers]”).
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.
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 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, as applied to claims 1-3, in view of Sonoyama et al (Clay Minerals (2021), 56, 284–291), Li et al (WO 2018/142461 A1 with citations drawn towards the translation provided via Espacenet), and Thompson et al (US 2017/0202978 A1).
As to claim 4, Jiang fails to disclose the specific method of forming the inorganic protective layer as claimed.
Sonoyama discloses preparation of layered double hydroxide films via an electrodeposition and subsequent growth (Title) comprising:
mixing a first divalent metal salt, aluminum nitrate and water to obtain a mixed solution (Experimental “The electrolyte solution contained the nitrate compound of MII and MIII ions and NaNO3 at concentrations of 0.05, 0.025 and 1.0 M, respectively.” Where the metals are the two metals forms of the LDH); taking the mixed solution as a deposition solution,
performing electrodeposition with the three-electrode system to obtain a post-deposition metal substrate; (Experimental “Total electrolysis time…Electrodeposition)
mixing a second divalent metal salt, aluminum nitrate, an acid anion source and water to obtain a mixture, and adding ammonia water to the mixture to adjust a pH value thereof to 9-12 to obtain a hydrothermal reaction solution; and placing the post-deposition metal substrate in the hydrothermal reaction solution, and performing hydrothermal reaction to obtain the metal with the inorganic protective layer, (Experimental “The electrodeposited films were dipped in a solution with the same components as the electrodeposition bath. After adjusting the pH of the solution to 9.0 via the addition of NaOH solution, the films were stored at 80°C under stirring for 2 days.)
wherein the first divalent metal salt and the second divalent metal salt are each independently selected from the group consisting of zinc nitrate and magnesium nitrate (See Experimental where the use of magnesium is disclosed in forming magnesium containin0 gLDHs).
constructing a three-electrode system with a metal substrate as a working electrode, and the acid anion source comprises one selected from the group consisting of a dihydrogen phosphate or a molybdate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the method of Sonoyama to form the layered double hydroxides in Jiang because the electrodeposition/crystal growth method allows for the growth of various LDHs on different surfaces and provides the expected result of substituting one method of LDH formation for another since the method of Sonoyama is a recognized method as such in forming LDHs. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 II.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the acid anion source of a molybdate in the hydrothermal reaction solution of Jiang, as modified by the method of Sonoyama, because Jiang desires the inclusion of molybdate into the MgAl-LDH during the hydrothermal synthesis (Jiang Section 2.3).
Li discloses using a three electrode deposition system to deposit a LDH layer (Fig. 2 [0042], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a three electrode deposition system as taught by Li in the method of Jiang, as modified by Sonoyama, in order to use a recognized system for depositing LDH layers which provide the expected result of the ability to apply the plating current against the counter electrode with using a reference electrode. See MPEP 2144.07.
Thompson discloses using ammonia in place of sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH for the deposition of a layered double hydroxide ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used ammonia in place of sodium hydroxide as taught by Thompson in the method of Jiang, as modified by Sonoyama and Li, because such a modification amounts to an obvious exchange of one chemical for another in order to provide an alkaline pH in order to carry out the hydrothermal reaction. See MPEP 2143 II and 2144.07.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang.
As to claim 6, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the temperature for which to perform the self-healing. However, Jiang also does not disclose using an elevated temperature, lowered temperature or the like.
Chen discloses testing the corrosion resistance of MgAl-LDH coating with an intercalation compound (Title) using a 3.5 % NaCl solution at room temperature (Section 2.3 “…at room temperature using a 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution.”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the self-healing at room temperature as taught by Chen during routine testing of the self-healing characteristics in 3.5 % NaCl of the as formed layers in the evaluation of the corrosion testing performed in Jiang because using such a temperature is recognized in the prior art as appropriate for carrying out the testing of layers within a 3.5% NaCl solution to evaluate the self-healing characteristics. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
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