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 .
Drawings
The drawings are no longer objected to in view of the amendments filed 3 September 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is no longer objected to in view of the amendments filed 3 September 2025.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (“Stellite alloy mixture hardfacing via laser cladding for control valve seat sealing surfaces”) in view of Lin et al. (“Characteristics of thin surface layers of cobalt-based alloys deposited by laser cladding”).
As to claim 1, Ding teaches a method of manufacturing a fluid contact member (seat surface of a control valve), comprising: a melting step of melting the raw material (the laser cladding step described in section 2.1 Hardfacing fabrication includes the melting of a metal powder), which contains cobalt, chromium, and carbon (Stellite alloys contain these three elements as shown in Table 1) on a substrate while moving the nozzle thereby moving a supply position of the raw material to the substrate (section 2.1 describes the laser and feeder (interpreted to be a nozzle) attached to robotic arms for laying town “tracks”), wherein the melting in the melting step is performed such that when a heat input amount to the raw material per movement distance is set to Q (kJ/cm), and a supply amount (g/cm) of the raw material to the substrate per movement distance is set to W (g/cm) (see Table 2 which indicates the laser powder is 1700W, which is 1.7 kJ/s; scanning speed is 6mm/s, which is 0.6cm/s; and feeding rate is 13g/min, which is 0.2g/s.), Q≤12 kJ/cm (Q=1.7 kJ/s ÷ 0.6 cm/s = 2.83 kJ/cm) and 2 kJ/g≤Q/W≤60 kJ/g (1.7 kJ/s ÷ 0.2g/s = 8.5kJ/g. Thus Q/W = 8.5 kJ/g).
Ding does not teach supplying a raw material between an inner portion and an outer portion of a double-structured nozzle.
Ding is silent as to the particulars of the shape of the feeder/nozzle. However, in the field of laser cladding, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a double-structured nozzle and supplying raw material between an inner and outer portion of the nozzle.
See Lin, which teaches a method of laser cladding cobalt-based alloys including Stellite in powder form for the purpose of adding a wear resistant, corrosion resistant, and high strength clad to a metal substrate. Lin teaches at Fig 1 a “schematic diagram of the coaxial powder feed nozzle used in laser cladding.” Fig 1 illustrated a double-structured nozzle such that the powder and the laser are coaxial. The powder is fed between and inner portion and an outer portion of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used the nozzle of Lin in the method of Ding. See MPEP § 2143 D which describes the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, the known technique is the use of a double-structured nozzle for laser cladding Stellite powder. It appears that a nozzle of any reasonable configuration useful for laser cladding powdered Stellite (including Lin) would be understood by such an artisan to be obvious to use in the method of Ding.
As to claim 2, Ding in view of Lin teaches the method of manufacturing a fluid contact member according to claim 1, wherein the melting in the melting step is performed by an additive manufacturing technique (the laser cladding process described in Ding section 2.1 is an additive manufacturing technique) using at least one raw material of a powder containing the raw material and a wire rod containing the raw material (Ding section 2.1 described the Stellite as raw powder form).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beste (US 11,492,682).
As to claim 3, Ding in view of Lin teaches the method of manufacturing a fluid contact member according to claim 1, but does not teach in the melting step, lamination molding is performed in a state where at least one of a substrate temperature and an inter-pass temperature is 200° C. or higher and 700° C. or lower.
However, in the field of laser cladding, and specifically laser cladding Stellite, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for keeping the workspace at controlled temperatures in order to maximize material properties at least to avoid cracks. See Beste which teaches at Column 17 lines 52: “The temperature of the component is, as indicated above, of importance. … The temperature of a body under construction needs to be kept at an elevated temperature as discussed above, such as higher than 300° C or preferably higher than 430° C.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the substrate temperature as claimed. Such a person would have been motivated to have followed Beste’s teachings in order to achieve the good adhesion, desirable solidification rate, and crack avoidance as described by Beste Col 17 lines 52+.
As to claim 4, Ding in view of Lin teaches the method of manufacturing a fluid contact member according to claim 1, but does not teach: a cooling step of performing cooling at a speed, at which a heat dissipation speed from the substrate to an outside is slower than a natural cooling speed, after the melting step.
However, in the field of laser cladding, and specifically laser cladding Stellite, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for keeping the workspace at controlled temperatures in order to maximize material properties at least to avoid cracks. See Beste which teaches at Column 17 lines 52: “The temperature of the component is, as indicated above, of importance. … The temperature of a body under construction needs to be kept at an elevated temperature as discussed above, such as higher than 300° C or preferably higher than 430° C.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the heat dissipation and cooling step slower than natural cooling speed, as claimed. Such a person would have been motivated to have followed Beste’s teachings in order to achieve the good adhesion, desirable solidification rate, and crack avoidance as described by Beste Col 17 lines 52+.
As to claim 5, Ding in view of Lin and Beste teaches the method of manufacturing a fluid contact member according to claim 4, wherein the cooling in the cooling step is performed by bringing a heat dissipation suppressing member for suppressing heat dissipation from the substrate to an outside into contact with the substrate (Beste teaches the heating of the working table to achieve the temperatures described in relation to claim 4. See Col 18 lines 1-3.).
As to claim 6, Ding in view of Lin teaches the method of manufacturing a fluid contact member according to claim 1, but does not teach a heat treatment step of performing heat treatment at a temperature of 200° C. or more and 700° C. or less after the melting step.
However, in the field of laser cladding, and specifically laser cladding Stellite, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for keeping the workspace at controlled temperatures after a melting step in order to maximize material properties at least to avoid cracks. See Beste which teaches at Column 17 lines 52: “The temperature of the component is, as indicated above, of importance. … The temperature of a body under construction needs to be kept at an elevated temperature as discussed above, such as higher than 300° C or preferably higher than 430° C.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the heat dissipation and cooling step slower than natural cooling speed, as claimed. Such a person would have been motivated to have followed Beste’s teachings in order to achieve the good adhesion, desirable solidification rate, and crack avoidance as described by Beste Col 17 lines 52+.
Moreover, Beste teaches at Col 16 lines 46-47, “The heat treatment may further increase the mechanical properties of the product.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 3 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under Ding and Beste have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ding in view of Lin and further with Beste.
Specifically, Applicant argues Ding doesn’t teach a double-structured nozzle. Examiner agrees. Ding is silent as to the structure of the feeder useful for supplying powdered Stellite to the substrate. However, double-structured nozzles were known in the art for laser cladding Stellite at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Lin.
A new rejection has been made in view of the Amendments filed 3 September 2025.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 17 September 2025