Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
2. The applicant’s amendment filed 26 August 2024 is acknowledged. As a result of the amendment Claims 6-11, 13-15, 18-20, 23-24, 26-27, 33-34, 36-37, and 41-60 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, and 40 are pending and under examination. Claims 1, 21, and 31 are still the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 17, 31, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haghdoost et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Haghdoost et al. discloses a method of depositing an alloy layer on a substrate (¶2) with the method generally described in ¶289-295 and an apparatus for the method depicted in FIG. 21. The method comprises: providing a cathode (cathode 2120) comprising an electrically conductive base material used as the substrate (labeled as such in FIG. 21 and the substrate maybe the actual cathode or the substrate is attached the cathode as per ¶289) that receives the alloy layer (i.e.: the textured coating layer in ¶289, an anode (anode 2130) associated with the cathode as depicted in FIG. 21. Haghdoost et al. further depicts an electrodeposition bath (i.e.: the electrolyte 2110 in the vessel of 2100) and a power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode depicted as (V) and a wire in FIG. 21. Haghdoost et al. also discloses in ¶289 and FIG. 21: providing a current from the power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode to electrodeposit an alloy layer (e.g.: Ni/Mo alloy as the coating adjacent to the substrate according to ¶199 and ¶204) on the cathode in the electrodeposition bath. As per the example alloy of Ni/Mo in ¶199 and ¶204 in Haghdoost et al., the electrodeposition bath comprises a molybdenum ionic species (e.g.: MoO42- or molybdate in ¶105 OR at least one molybdenum salt in ¶113) and at least one ionic species of a second element that is nickel (at least on nickel salt in ¶112). Example 1 in ¶308-311 highlights the deposition of a Ni/Mo coating on carbon steel and said coated substrate is tested for acid resistance. Haghdoost et al. indicates the electrodeposition bath temperature is between 20 and 90 degrees Celsius (¶115) which meets the limitation of a bath temperature of 45 degree Celsius. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation occurs when the prior art discloses examples (or embodiments) that overlap with the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
Regarding Claim 2, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the molybdenum is present in the alloy layer at 35% or less by weight based on a weight of the alloy layer as supported by ¶13 and Claim 15 which discloses embodiments where the second layer (i.e.: a NiMo alloy) has Mo loading of 5 to 40 wt. % in the second layer. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses examples (or embodiments) that overlap with the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE
Regarding Claim 3, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the anode is configured as a soluble anode and dissolves in the electrodeposition bath to provide protons to the electrodeposition bath as supported by ¶294 which indicates the anode 2130 can gradually dissolve during the electrodeposition process and contribute in replenishing the positively charged-ions in the electrolyte. As a non-limiting example, zinc and nickel plates can be used in the zinc and nickel electrodeposition process, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the anode is insoluble in the electrodeposition bath as evidenced by ¶294 where it is written: “some anodes such as those made of platinum or titanium remain intact during the electrodeposition process.” An anode that remains intact is analogous to an insoluble anode.
Regarding Claim 17, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1,
further comprising subjecting the electrodeposited alloy layer to a post deposition treatment process as supported by ¶100 where it is written: “the electrochemical process is followed by at least one other process selected from the group consisting of annealing, thermal processing, hydrogen bake relief, vacuum conditioning, aging, plasma etching, grit blasting, wet etching, ion milling, exposure to electromagnetic radiation, and combinations thereof.”
Regarding Claim 31, Haghdoost et al. discloses a method of depositing an alloy layer on a substrate (¶2) with the method generally described in ¶289-295 and an apparatus for the method depicted in FIG. 21. The method comprises: providing a cathode (cathode 2120) comprising an electrically conductive base material used as the substrate (labeled as such in FIG. 21 and the substrate maybe the actual cathode or the substrate is attached the cathode as per ¶289) that receives the alloy layer (i.e.: the textured coating layer in ¶289, an insoluble anode (anode 2130) associated with the cathode as depicted in FIG. 21. The insoluble anode is selected from titanium or platinum as per ¶294. Haghdoost et al. further depicts an electrodeposition bath (i.e.: the electrolyte 2110 in the vessel of 2100) and a power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode depicted as (V) and a wire in FIG. 21. Haghdoost et al. also discloses in ¶289 and FIG. 21: providing a current from the power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode to electrodeposit an alloy layer (e.g.: Ni/Mo alloy as the coating adjacent to the substrate according to ¶199 and ¶204) on the cathode in the electrodeposition bath. As per the example alloy of Ni/Mo in ¶199 and ¶204 in Haghdoost et al., the electrodeposition bath comprises a molybdenum ionic species (e.g.: MoO42- or molybdate in ¶105 OR at least one molybdenum salt in ¶113) and at least one ionic species of a second element that is nickel (at least on nickel salt in ¶112). Example 1 in ¶308-311 highlights the deposition of a Ni/Mo coating on carbon steel and said coated substrate is tested for acid resistance. Haghdoost et al. indicates the electrodeposition bath temperature is between 20 and 90 degrees Celsius (¶115) which meets the limitation of a bath temperature of 45 degree Celsius. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses examples (or embodiments) that overlap with the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
Regarding Claim 32, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 31, wherein the molybdenum is present in the alloy layer at 35% or less by weight based on a weight of the alloy layer as supported by ¶13 and Claim 15 of Haghdoost et al. which discloses embodiments where the second layer (i.e.: a NiMo alloy) has Mo loading of 5 to 40 wt. % in the second layer. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses examples (or embodiments) that overlap with the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
Regarding Claim 35, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 31, wherein a DC voltage (i.e.: a constant voltage) is used during the electrodeposition of the alloy layer as per ¶289 and FIG. 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wurm et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Wurm et al. (US Pub. No 2010/0206735 A1) is directed toward an anode assembly for electroplating (title).
Regarding Claim 4, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 3 and discussed the geometric shape of different (soluble) anodes in ¶294. However, Haghdoost et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the soluble anode is constructed and arranged as one or more of rods, shots, spheres, disks, or strips of material placed inside an insoluble basket immersed in the electrodeposition bath.
Wurm et al. is in the area of anodes for electroplating (Abstract). In particular Wurm et al. teaches wherein the soluble anode is constructed and arranged as one or more of rods, shots, spheres, disks, or strips of material placed inside an insoluble basket immersed in the electrodeposition bath as per ¶10-13. Wurm et al. defines a soluble anode as an anode material that will be dissolved upon anodic oxidation (¶10). The anode assembly of Wurm et al. teaches an anode body comprising a soluble anode material and a shielding covering at least part of the anode body (¶10). In one specific embodiment of Wurm et al. in ¶43, the anode assembly comprises an anode basket, which is a perforated shallow receptacle or container for holding particles of soluble anode material to be submerged in a plating bath. Wurm et al. further clarifies in ¶43, the anode basket comprises sidewalls, a bottom wall and an open upper end wherein at least one of the sidewalls is perforated to allow electrolyte transport therethrough with the pieces of soluble anode material can be provided for instance in the form of balls, pellets or wire cuttings of the anode material. The previous description meets the limitation of Claim 4 pertaining to the anode basket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. to include a soluble anode is constructed and arranged as one or more of rods, shots, spheres, disks, or strips of material placed inside an insoluble basket immersed in the electrodeposition bath as taught by Wurm. The motivation to the skilled artisan would have been to provide for an improved electroplating process by providing anode baskets that takes over an electrochemical function thereby improving the electroplating performance as per Wurm et al. in ¶64.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cahalen et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Cahalen et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0232111 A1) is directed toward coated articles and methods (title).
Regarding Claim 12, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1 and different electrical patterns, i.e.: voltage/current conditions during electrodeposition of the alloy layer, are discussed in ¶289. which elaborates the different options for applying. However, Haghdoost et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pulse current or a pulse reverse current is used during the electrodeposition of the alloy layer.
Cahalen et al. is in the field of coated articles (abstract) like Haghdoost et al. Cahalen et al. discloses numerous modes of electrodepositing the Ni/Mo alloy onto the substrate in ¶35. Cahalen et al. further describes the article may include a base material and a multi-layer coating formed thereon with the first layer comprises an alloy (providing a similar structure to Haghdoost et al.). Among the different electrodeposition profile types, Cahalen et al. expressly teaches a pulse current or a pulse reverse current is used during the electrodeposition of the alloy layer as per ¶17 and ¶35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the DC voltage electrodeposition step in the method of Haghdoost et al. with pulse (reverse) current to drive the electrodeposition of the alloy layer as taught by Cahalen et al. since both types of deposition are known equivalents for the same purpose (i.e.: they drive electrodeposition of a coating onto a substrate). See MPEP 2144.06.II - SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
9. Claims 16 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. as applied to Claim 1 and 31 above, and further in view of Ruan et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Ruan et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186033 A1) is directed toward electrodeposition in ionic liquid electrolytes (title).
Regarding Claim 16, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, but fails to teach that prior to the electrodeposition the steps of: cleaning the cathode; rinsing the cleaned cathode; activating a surface of the cleaned cathode to provide an activated cathode; rinsing the activated cathode; and electrodepositing the alloy layer on the activated cathode.
Ruan et al. is directed toward electrodeposition (abstract) so it is in the same field of art as Haghdoost et al. In particular, Ruan et al. teaches that prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode, cleaning the cathode (¶97) to ensure proper activation of the cathode and anode during the initial electrodeposition setup followed by rinsing the cleaned electrodes ¶99). Optionally, Ruan et al. teaches an electrocleaning and electropolishing in ¶99 and ¶100 to further clean and prepare the surface of the cathode. According to ¶101 in Ruan et al., the cathode material is then subjected to an acid etch/activation (process 156) after the optional electrocleaning/electropolishing. The acid etched cathode is then rinse with DI water as per ¶101 in Ruan et al. ensuring the cathode is properly activated to accept the electrodeposited coating as per ¶97.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. to include the enhanced surface preparation steps of Ruan et al. (i.e.: cleaning and etching/activation) prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode. The motivation would have been to provide a substrate that is appropriately activated to accept an electrodeposited alloy (Ruan ¶97).
Regarding Claim 38, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 31, but fails to teach that prior to the electrodeposition the steps of: cleaning the cathode; rinsing the cleaned cathode; activating a surface of the cleaned cathode to provide an activated cathode; rinsing the activated cathode; and electrodepositing the alloy layer on the activated cathode.
Ruan et al. is directed toward electrodeposition (abstract) so it is in the same field of art as Haghdoost et al. In particular, Ruan et al. teaches that prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode, cleaning the cathode (¶97) to ensure proper activation of the cathode and anode during the initial electrodeposition setup followed by rinsing the cleaned electrodes ¶99). Optionally, Ruan et al. teaches an electrocleaning and electropolishing in ¶99 and ¶100 to further clean and prepare the surface of the cathode. According to ¶101 in Ruan et al., the cathode material is then subjected to an acid etch/activation (process 156) after the optional electrocleaning/electropolishing. The acid etched cathode is then rinse with DI water as per ¶101 in Ruan et al. ensuring the cathode is properly activated to accept the electrodeposited coating as per ¶97.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. to include the enhanced surface preparation steps of Ruan et al. (i.e.: cleaning and etching/activation) prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode. The motivation would have been to provide a substrate that is appropriately activated to accept an electrodeposited alloy (Ruan ¶97).
10. Claims 21, 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. and further in view of Bigos et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Bigos et al. (“Studies on electrochemical deposition and physicochemical properties of nanocrystalline Ni‐Mo alloy,” Surf. Coat. Tech. 2017, 317, 103-109) is directed toward characterizing Ni-Mo alloy properties (pg. 103: title).
Regarding Claim 21, Haghdoost et al. discloses a method of depositing an alloy layer on a substrate (¶2) with the method generally described in ¶289-295 and an apparatus for the method depicted in FIG. 21. The method comprises: providing a cathode (cathode 2120) comprising an electrically conductive base material used as the substrate (labeled as such in FIG. 21 and the substrate maybe the actual cathode or the substrate is attached the cathode as per ¶289) that receives the alloy layer (i.e.: the textured coating layer in ¶289, an insoluble anode (anode 2130) associated with the cathode as depicted in FIG. 21. The insoluble anode is selected from titanium or platinum as per ¶294. Haghdoost et al. further depicts an electrodeposition bath (i.e.: the electrolyte 2110 in the vessel of 2100) and a power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode depicted as (V) and a wire in FIG. 21. Haghdoost et al. also discloses in ¶289 and FIG. 21: providing a current from the power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode to electrodeposit an alloy layer (e.g.: Ni/Mo alloy as the coating adjacent to the substrate according to ¶199 and ¶204) on the cathode in the electrodeposition bath. As per the example alloy of Ni/Mo in ¶199 and ¶204 in Haghdoost et al., the electrodeposition bath comprises a molybdenum ionic species (e.g.: MoO42- or molybdate in ¶105 OR at least one molybdenum salt in ¶113) and at least one ionic species of a second element that is nickel (at least on nickel salt in ¶112). Example 1 in ¶308-311 highlights the deposition of a Ni/Mo coating on carbon steel and said coated substrate is tested for acid resistance. Haghdoost et al. indicates the electrodeposition bath temperature is between 20 and 90 degrees Celsius (¶115) which meets the limitation of a bath temperature of 45 degree Celsius. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art and the claimed range overlap. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
However, Haghdoost et al. is silent on the surface roughness Ra of the deposited alloy. According to the abstract, Bigos et al. is directed toward characterizing the properties of deposited NiMo alloys meaning it is analogous art to Haghdoost et al.
Bigos et al. describes an electrodeposition method on pg. 104 in the Experimental Section. The method of depositing a NiMo alloy taught by Bigos et al. occurs under galvanostatic conditions using an electrolyte bath of 0.2 M NiSO4, 0.003M–0.048 M Na2MoO4 and 0.3 M–0.6 M sodium citrate at different pH values (ranging from 4-10). Using the electrolyte bath and galvanostatic deposition, Bigos characterized the surface roughness of the deposited alloys ranging from 20 degrees C to 60 degrees C showing that the roughness was under 0.2 microns in all cases (pg. 107.: 3.2. “Influence of the hydrodynamic condition and temperature of the process on the chemical composition and morphology of Ni‐Mo alloys”) with higher temperatures increasing the deposition of Mo as depicted in the left hand plot in Fig. 5 (pg. 107). Bigos et al. further indicates that increased molybdenum content in the coating led to a decrease in the average size of the crystallites, from 50 to 2 nm (meaning a smoother surface). On pg. 108, Bigos discloses that increased crystal refinement (from higher Mo loadings) enhanced the hardness of the deposited NiMo alloy (up to a point) and thus increases the abrasion resistance of said alloy.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. with the galvanostatic deposition and electrolyte bath composition of Bigos et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a NiMo with low surface roughness (~0.2 microns) having increased wear resistance.
Therefore, the combination of Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. renders the claim limitation of an Ra value of less than 1 micron prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 22, Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein the molybdenum is present in the alloy layer at 35% or less by weight based on a weight of the alloy layer as supported by Bigos et al. in Fig. 7 which shows a comparison of the Mo content in the film and the hardness (pg. 108). Bigos et al. indicates that the hardness increases as the Mo content is increased to ~16 wt.% based on the total weight of the coating. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art (Mo content up to 16 wt.%) and the claimed range overlap (Mo content less than 35 wt.%). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 29, Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein the electrodeposited alloy layer consists essentially of nickel and molybdenum (Haghdoost et al. in ¶199, ¶204, and Ex. 1 in ¶308-311). Furthermore, the electrodeposited alloy layer has a surface roughness Ra or less than 1 micron as per the modification of the method of Haghdoost et al. by using the galvanostatic deposition and electrolyte composition of Bigos et al. since the combination results in NiMo alloys with an Ra value of less than 0.2 microns (pg. 107: 3.2. “Influence of the hydrodynamic condition and temperature of the process on the chemical composition and morphology of Ni‐Mo alloys”).
Regarding Claim 30, Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. discloses the method of Claim 29, wherein the substrate is sized and arranged as a cylinder, a rod, a hollow tube, a blade, or a pipe as evidenced by ¶37 of Haghdoost et al. as the coating can be present on a pipe.
11. Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. and further in view of Humam et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Humam et al. (“Effect of Pulse and Direct Current Electrodeposition on Microstructure, Surface, and Scratch Resistance Properties of Ni-W Alloy and Ni-W-SiC Composite Coatings,” Acta Metallurgica Sinica 2020, 33, 1321-1330.
Regarding Claim 21, Haghdoost et al. discloses a method of depositing an alloy layer on a substrate (¶2) with the method generally described in ¶289-295 and an apparatus for the method depicted in FIG. 21. The method comprises: providing a cathode (cathode 2120) comprising an electrically conductive base material used as the substrate (labeled as such in FIG. 21 and the substrate maybe the actual cathode or the substrate is attached the cathode as per ¶289) that receives the alloy layer (i.e.: the textured coating layer in ¶289, an insoluble anode (anode 2130) associated with the cathode as depicted in FIG. 21. The insoluble anode is selected from titanium or platinum as per ¶294. Haghdoost et al. further depicts an electrodeposition bath (i.e.: the electrolyte 2110 in the vessel of 2100) and a power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode depicted as (V) and a wire in FIG. 21. Haghdoost et al. also discloses in ¶289 and FIG. 21: providing a current from the power supply connected to the cathode and the anode associated with the cathode to electrodeposit an alloy layer (e.g.: Ni/Mo alloy as the coating adjacent to the substrate according to ¶199 and ¶204) on the cathode in the electrodeposition bath. As per the example alloy of Ni/Mo in ¶199 and ¶204 in Haghdoost et al., the electrodeposition bath comprises a molybdenum ionic species (e.g.: MoO42- or molybdate in ¶105 OR at least one molybdenum salt in ¶113) and at least one ionic species of a second element that is nickel (at least on nickel salt in ¶112). Example 1 in ¶308-311 highlights the deposition of a Ni/Mo coating on carbon steel and said coated substrate is tested for acid resistance. Haghdoost et al. indicates the electrodeposition bath temperature is between 20 and 90 degrees Celsius (¶115) which meets the limitation of a bath temperature of 45 degree Celsius. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art and the claimed range overlap. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
However, Haghdoost et al. is silent on the surface roughness Ra of the deposited alloy. Humam et al. is directed toward the electrodeposition of Ni-W alloys under different electrical profiles (pg. 1321: title) so it is equivalent art to Haghdoost et al. Furthermore, Claim 21 indicates that Mo and W are regarded as equivalent species.
Humam et al. teaches the electrodeposition of nickel-based alloys onto a copper cathode as per Table 1 and Table 2 on pg. 1322. The electrolyte bath comprises: nickel sulfate (i.e.: nickel as the second element), sodium tungstate (i.e.: a tungsten ionic species) and other additives (pg. 1322) and the electrolyte was held at 60 degrees C during the electrodeposition (Table 2). Humam et al. further evaluated the impact of DC and pulsed current (“PC”) deposition on the resultant films. Humam et al. found that PC deposition resulted in a smaller grain size (pg. 1324: Table 3) and a lower Ra value (pg. 1325: Table 4) when compared to the DC deposition for the deposited Ni-W alloy. In section 3.2 “Microhardness” on pg. 1326, Humam et al. indicates that the PC deposited Ni-W alloy has about 2x the hardness of the DC deposited alloy. The significant improvement in microhardness of Ni–W PC coating are a result of the enhanced grain refinement and higher lattice strain (pg. 1327: 3.2 “Microhardness”). Likewise, Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b. illustrates the difference in abrasion/wear resistance between the PC and DC electrodeposited alloys with the former showing a smaller scratch profile with less microfracture formation (pg. 1329).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. using the PC electrodeposition profile of Humam et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an alloy with low surface roughness having increased hardness and wear resistance.
Therefore, the combination of Haghdoost et al. in view of Humam et al. renders the claim limitation of an Ra value of less than 1 micron prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 25, Haghdoost et al. in view of Humam et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, wherein a DC voltage (i.e.: a constant voltage) or pulse current is used during the electrodeposition of the alloy layer as per pg. 1322-1323 in section 2.2. “Preparation of Ni-W Alloys and Ni-W-SiC Composite Coatings” of Humam et al. However, there is a preference for pulsed current deposition as explained above in Claim 21.
12. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. as applied to Claim 31 above, and further in view of Bigos et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Bigos et al. (“Studies on electrochemical deposition and physicochemical properties of nanocrystalline Ni‐Mo alloy,” Surf. Coat. Tech. 2017, 317, 103-109) is directed toward characterizing Ni-Mo alloy properties (pg. 103: title).
Regarding Claim 39, Haghdoost et al. discloses the method of Claim 31, wherein the electrodeposited alloy layer consists essentially of nickel and molybdenum (Haghdoost et al. in ¶199, ¶204, and Ex. 1 in ¶308-311).
However, Haghdoost et al. is silent on the surface roughness Ra of the deposited alloy. According to the abstract, Bigos et al. is directed toward characterizing the properties of deposited NiMo alloys meaning it is analogous art to Haghdoost et al.
Bigos et al. describes an electrodeposition method on pg. 104 in the Experimental Section. The method of depositing a NiMo alloy taught by Bigos et al. occurs under galvanostatic conditions using an electrolyte bath of 0.2 M NiSO4, 0.003M–0.048 M Na2MoO4 and 0.3 M–0.6 M sodium citrate at different pH values (ranging from 4-10). Using the electrolyte bath and galvanostatic deposition, Bigos characterized the surface roughness of the deposited alloys ranging from 20 degrees C to 60 degrees C showing that the roughness was under 0.2 microns in all cases (pg. 107.: 3.2. “Influence of the hydrodynamic condition and temperature of the process on the chemical composition and morphology of Ni‐Mo alloys”) with higher temperatures increasing the deposition of Mo as depicted in the left hand plot in Fig. 5 (pg. 107). Bigos et al. further indicates that increased molybdenum content in the coating led to a decrease in the average size of the crystallites, from 50 to 2 nm (meaning a smoother surface). On pg. 108, Bigos discloses that increased crystal refinement (from higher Mo loadings) enhanced the hardness of the deposited NiMo alloy (up to a point) and thus increases the abrasion resistance of said alloy.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. with the galvanostatic deposition and electrolyte bath composition of Bigos et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a NiMo with low surface roughness (~0.2 microns) having increased wear resistance.
Therefore, the combination of Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. renders the claim limitation of an Ra value of less than 1 micron prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 40, Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. discloses the method of Claim 39, wherein the substrate is sized and arranged as a cylinder, a rod, a hollow tube, a blade, or a pipe as evidenced by ¶37 of Haghdoost et al. as the coating can be present on a pipe.
13. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Ruan et al.
Haghdoost et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186035 A1) is directed toward articles including surface coatings and methods to produce them (title). Bigos et al. (“Studies on electrochemical deposition and physicochemical properties of nanocrystalline Ni‐Mo alloy,” Surf. Coat. Tech. 2017, 317, 103-109) is directed toward characterizing Ni-Mo alloy properties (pg. 103: title). Ruan et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0186033 A1) is directed toward electrodeposition in ionic liquid electrolytes (title).
Regarding Claim 28, Haghdoost et al. in view of Bigos et al. discloses the method of Claim 21, but fails to teach that prior to the electrodeposition the steps of: cleaning the cathode; rinsing the cleaned cathode; activating a surface of the cleaned cathode to provide an activated cathode; rinsing the activated cathode; and electrodepositing the alloy layer on the activated cathode.
Ruan et al. is directed toward electrodeposition (abstract) so it is in the same field of art as Haghdoost et al. In particular, Ruan et al. teaches that prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode, cleaning the cathode (¶97) to ensure proper activation of the cathode and anode during the initial electrodeposition setup followed by rinsing the cleaned electrodes ¶99). Optionally, Ruan et al. teaches an electrocleaning and electropolishing in ¶99 and ¶100 to further clean and prepare the surface of the cathode. According to ¶101 in Ruan et al., the cathode material is then subjected to an acid etch/activation (process 156) after the optional electrocleaning/electropolishing. The acid etched cathode is then rinse with DI water as per ¶101 in Ruan et al. ensuring the cathode is properly activated to accept the electrodeposited coating as per ¶97.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Haghdoost et al. to include the enhanced surface preparation steps of Ruan et al. (i.e.: cleaning and etching/activation) prior to electrodeposition of the alloy layer on the cathode. The motivation would have been to provide a substrate that is appropriately activated to accept an electrodeposited alloy (Ruan ¶97).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (CN102191517 A – google translation) is directed toward a method for electrodeposition of Zn, Ni, Mo and their alloy in ionic liquid (title). Tani et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0102414 A1) is directed toward a Ni-plated steel sheet and a method for production of the same (title).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights