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
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/27/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 and 16-30 in the reply filed on 6/27/25 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 19, the specification states “to provide the require corrosion and radiation resilience” but apparently should state “required”
On page 7, lines 8-9, the specification omits the degree symbol between “1250” and “C”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5 – the claim refers to “the substrate” when the claim in line 2 sets forth “a metallic substrate”. While this would be fine, the claim also later refers to “the metallic substrate” in several other places (see claim 1 lines 6 & 7), it would appear that the use of both “the substrate” and “the metallic substrate” is a typographical error and so the examiner suggests amending the claims to have consistent phrasing throughout.
Additional instances of the phrase “the substrate” can be found in claim 1, line 10; claim 2 multiple instances in lines 2-4; claim 5 line 1; claim 6, line 1; claim 8, line 1, claim 9, line 2; claim 11, line 2; claim 16, line 5; claim 17, line 2; claim 18, multiple instances in lines 2-4; claim 21, line 2; claim 22, line 1; claim 24, line 1; claim 25, line 2; claim 27, line 2; claim 28, line 2; and claim 30 multiple instances in lines 5, 9-11 in which each of the listed instances, including those based on independent claims 16 and 30, also have inconsistencies similar to those listed previously with respect to claim 1.
In claims 10 and 26, lines 1 and 2 in each of the respective claims, there would appear to be in a typographical error in that the “and/or” clause of the iron group doesn’t include a comma immediately before, but the “and/or” clause of the refractory group does.
In claims 13 and 29, line 2 in each of the respective claims, includes the limitation “1250 C” which omits the degree symbol.
In claims 16 and 30, line 7 in each of the respective claims, the limitation reads “coating more”; however, there appears to be a missing “and” as the earlier limitation ends after coating and a new clause is being set forth with “more” as stated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 30 each include an “iron group element” (see line 3 of claims 1, 16 and 30) and a “refractory group element” (see line 3 of claims 1, 16 and 30). While the specification does provide some indication that the groups should have specific meaning (see Specification at page 16 lines 13-16 listing closed lists for the iron group metal and the refractory group metal), it also speaks more broadly of the groupings in other sections (see Specification at page 15 lines 10-13 teaching the specific elements listed as being exemplary).
Moreover, in the art it doesn’t appear that these groupings are clearly defined (see e.g. US Pub. No. 2013/0213197 at Abstract teaching iron group elements and refractory group elements including different elements to that given by the instant specification; see also US Pub. No. 2016/0114425 at ¶23 teaching the definition of what constitutes a refractory element or an element in the refractory group as varying in the art). As such, it is unclear what elements are included and excluded from the limitations as presently presented.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the iron group element and the refractory group element as what is given on page 16, lines 13-16 of the Specification (specifically, the “iron group element” including one or more of Fe, Ni, or Co; and, the “refractory group element” including one or more of Mo, Re, or W).
Claim 3 recites two instances of the limitations "the waveform" in lines 2 and 3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is noted that claim 3 depends from claim 2 which sets forth two different waveforms (see claim 2 at lines 1-3 setting forth a iron group element waveform and see lines 3-4 setting forth a refractory group element waveform). Additionally, it is noted that independent claim 1 also sets forth a step of electrolytic deposition which would inherently include a waveform (see claim 1 at lines 2-3). As such, the limitations in claim 3 are indefinite since they could refer to different waveforms as previously set forth. For example, is it limiting just the waveform of the iron group element deposition or just the waveform of the refractory group element deposition or both?
Also note, that claim 19 includes similar language to rejected claim 3, and as such is rejected on the same basis – the reasoning of which is incorporated herein with respect to the rejection of claim 19.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating “the waveform” claims 3 and 19 as referring to the varying waveforms of independent claim 1 and 16 respectively, and not the preferentially deposited waveforms of dependent claims 2 and 18.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the iron group” in line 1 and “the refractory group” in line 2. However, instead of setting forth groups, independent claim 1 sets forth elements – specifically, an “iron group element” and a “refractory group element” (see claim 1 at line 3). As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is also noted that dependent claim 26 is identical to claim 10 and so includes the same issue, the reasoning of which is incorporated herein and so also applied to dependent claim 26 on a similar basis.
Moreover, dependent claims 11 and 27 in each of their respective lines 2 and 3, also includes “the iron group” and “the refractory group” and so like claims 10 and 26, would also lack antecedent basis for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to claims 11 and 27, the claims requires “90+% of the iron group [element]” (see claims 11 and 27 at line 2 respectively). However, it is unclear whether the limitation is merely greater than 90% or greater or equal to 90% and so is deemed indefinite on this basis.
Please note, for claim interpretation purposes the examiner will be treating the limitation as requiring greater than or equal to 90 wt%.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "diffusion bonding" in line 1 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, dependent claim 28 previously set forth the additional step of diffusion bonding and so the reference here should state “the” or “said” diffusion bonding so as to clearly refer back to the previously set forth step. Otherwise, it is unclear whether a new diffusion bonding step is being set forth or if the limitation is meant to further limit the previously set forth step.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the reference to “diffusion bonding” in claim 29 as further limiting the earlier recited step.
Additionally, all dependent claims are also included herein since as a dependent claim, they include the indefiniteness issues, as set forth above, of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 26, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,268,235 to Lashmore et al., (hereinafter referred to as “LASHMORE”).
Regarding claim 16, LASHMORE teaches a method of coating a metallic substrate (see generally LASHMORE at Abstract and Fig. 1 & Fig. 2; see also col. 2 line 62-col. 3 line 10), the method comprising:
subjecting the metallic substrate to an electrolytic deposition process including an electrolyte solution with an iron group element and a refractory group element (see LASHMORE at col. 2 lines 18-39; see also col. 5 lines 54-58 teaching various alloy mixtures including Co-W, Ni-W, and Ni-Mo);
instead of changing the electrolyte solution, varying one or more electrolytic deposition waveform parameters to deposit on the metallic substrate a functionally graded coating with more of the iron group element and less of the refractory group element at a first portion of the coating and more of the refractory group element and less of the iron group element at a second portion of the coating (see LASHMORE at col. 2 lines 28-46; see also col. 4 lines 11-14 teaching the variation of at least one plating parameter; see also LASHMORE at col. 5 lines 23-30 teaching a continuously varying embodiment).
Regarding claim 17, LASHMORE teaches the method in which the first portion of the coating is at an interface between the coating and the metallic substrate and the second portion of the coating is at the surface of the coating (see LASHMORE at col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 10 teaching the primary deposition on to the substrate of a first metal or alloy followed by a second deposition parameter at which primarily only the second metal or alloy is deposited; see also col. 5 lines 56-57 which for at least the Co-W or Ni-W deposition systems would include Ni or Co being at a higher concentration at either the substrate surface or the coating surface and the concentration of the W being higher at the other and vice versa, which for the Ni/Co being higher at the substrate surface and the W being higher at the coating surface reads on the limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, LASHMORE teaches the method in which the waveform parameters vary from a waveform that preferentially influences the iron group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate to a waveform that preferentially influences the refractory group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate (see teachings of LASHMORE cited above with respect to claims 16 and 17 and, in particular, col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 10 which for the Ni-W or Co-W alloys would include options of Ni or Co as the iron group elements and tungsten as the refractory group element which would be preferentially deposited as claimed).
Regarding claim 26, LASHMORE teaches the method wherein the iron group element includes Fe, Co, and/or Ni and the refractory group element includes Mo, W, and/or Re (see LASHMORE at col. 5 lines 54-58 teaching Co and Ni as the iron group element and W and Mo as the refractory group elements).
Regarding claim 28, LASHMORE teaches the method further including diffusion bonding the coating to the metallic substrate (see LASHMORE at col. 5 lines 4-15 teaching the diffusion annealing and bonding of the layers through the promotion of local homogeneity).
Regarding claim 30, LASHMORE teaches a method of coating a metallic substrate as claimed (see the rejections of claims 16 and 18 above and incorporated herein setting forth how all the limitations of the claim are taught by LASHMORE).
Claim(s) 16-18, 24-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2009/0283410 to Sklar et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SKLAR”) with evidence from US Pub. No. 2006/0272949 to Detor et al., (hereinafter referred to as “DETOR”) as to claim 24 only.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, SKLAR teaches a method of coating a metallic substrate (see generally SKLAR at Abstract and ¶10 and ¶22 teaching the use of coatings to provide advantageous properties to the coated articles), the method comprising:
subjecting the metallic substrate to an electrolytic deposition process including an electrolyte solution with an iron group element and a refractory group element (see SKLAR at ¶24 teaching the substrate being coating with Ni-W alloy, Co-W alloy, Ni-Mo alloy, Co-Mo alloy and others which includes Ni and Co as iron group elements and Mo and W as refractory group elements);
instead of changing the electrolyte solution, varying one or more electrolytic deposition waveform parameters to deposit on the metallic substrate a functionally graded coating (see SKLAR at ¶42-¶43 teaching the use of electrodeposition with a varying current density, potential or current with changed pulses; see also SKLAR at ¶47 and ¶53 teaching the use of a pulse reverse plating process and the waveform parameters – including pulse type, duration, etc. – being selected so as to impart the desired composition) with more of the iron group element and less of the refractory group element at a first portion of the coating and more of the refractory group element and less of the iron group element at a second portion of the coating (see SKLAR at ¶26-¶29 teaching a first and second portion with the first portion being at least 30% Ni up to at least 60% Ni with the remainder W, i.e. 70% or less, and the second portion being 1-20% W and at least 50% up to at least 80% Ni).
Regarding claim 17, SKLAR teaches the method in which the first portion of the coating is at an interface between the coating and the metallic substrate and the second portion of the coating is at the surface of the coating (see SKLAR at ¶31 teaching the portions of the coating being arrangeable and also teaching the possibility of the second portion being positioned on the interior of the coating. It is specifically noted that the examiner is basing the rejection of SKLAR on the basis of the second coating being on the interior and covered on the exterior by the first coating. Moreover, the second coating being at the substrate coating interface with at least 50% and up to at least 80% Ni would read on the coating near the substrate and the first coating having 30% up to at least 60% Ni would allow for W at 70% or less and so would include values with more of the refractory group element as recited).
Regarding claim 18, SKLAR teaches the method in which the waveform parameters vary from a waveform that preferentially influences the iron group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate to a waveform that preferentially influences the refractory group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claim 16 as to the amount of Ni and W in the second and first coatings which would have to allow for the features as claimed in order to provide for the second coating with at least 80% Ni and 1-20% W and the first coating with at least 30% up to at least 60% Ni and so 70% or less W).
Regarding claim 24, SKLAR teaches the method wherein the metallic substrate is a stainless steel material or tungsten (see SKLAR at ¶37 teaching the substrate including conductive materials and metals such as steel; see also SKLAR at ¶44 incorporating DETOR which at ¶99 teaches substrates for the compositionally graded materials formed via electrodeposition including a wide range of substrate with conductive surfaces including stainless steel).
Regarding claim 25, SKLAR teaches the method wherein the CTE of the functionally graded coating is lower than that of the metallic substrate (see teachings of SKLAR above with respect to the rejections of claims 16 and 26 teaching an overlap of the amounts of the iron group element and the refractory group element for the Ni-W alloy such that the CTE as claimed would be expected to be necessarily present as shown by Applicant’s specification at Table I since the prior art would have similar amount of Ni and W or Mo and so provide a lower CTE when compared to stainless steel).
Regarding claim 27, SKLAR teaches the method wherein the functionally graded coating adjacent the metallic substrate interface comprises greater than or equal to 90% of the iron group element (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claims 16 and 17 as to the amount of Ni and W in the second with at least 80% Ni and 1-20% W) and the functionally graded coating at its surface comprises between 20% and 60% of the refractory group element (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claims 16 and 17 as to the amount of Ni and W in the first coating with at least 30% up to at least 60% Ni and so 40-70% W).
Regarding claim 30, SKLAR teaches a method of coating a metallic substrate as claimed (see the rejections of claims 16 and 18 above and incorporated herein setting forth how all the limitations of the claim are taught by SKLAR).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and US Pat. No. 2,653,128 to Brenner et al., (hereinafter referred to as “BRENNER”) with evidence from DETOR as to claim 8 only.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, SKLAR teaches a method of coating a metallic substrate (see generally SKLAR at Abstract and ¶10 and ¶22 teaching the use of coatings to provide advantageous properties to the coated articles), the method comprising:
subjecting the metallic substrate to an electrolytic deposition process including an electrolyte with an iron group element and a refractory group element (see SKLAR at ¶24 teaching the substrate being coating with Ni-W alloy, Co-W alloy, Ni-Mo alloy, Co-Mo alloy and others which includes Ni and Co as iron group elements and Mo and W as refractory group elements);
varying one or more electrolytic deposition waveform parameters to deposit on the metallic substrate a functionally graded coating (see SKLAR at ¶42-¶43 teaching the use of electrodeposition with a varying current density, potential or current with changed pulses; see also SKLAR at ¶47 and ¶53 teaching the use of a pulse reverse plating process and the waveform parameters – including pulse type, duration, etc. – being selected so as to impart the desired composition) with more of the iron group element and less of the refractory group element at an interface between the coating and the metallic substrate to better match the coefficient of thermal expansion of the coating and the metallic substrate and more of the refractory group element and less of the iron group element as the thickness of the coating increases for improving corrosion resistance to salts (see SKLAR at ¶26-¶29 teaching a first and second portion with the first portion being at least 30% Ni up to at least 60% Ni with the remainder W, i.e. 70% or less, and the second portion being 1-20% W and at least 50% up to at least 80% Ni; see also SKLAR at ¶31 teaching the portions of the coating being arrangeable and also teaching the possibility of the second portion being positioned on the interior of the coating. It is specifically noted that the examiner is basing the rejection of SKLAR on the basis of the second coating being on the interior and covered on the exterior by the first coating. Moreover, the second coating being at the substrate coating interface with at least 50% and up to at least 80% Ni would read on the coating near the substrate and the first coating having 30% up to at least 60% Ni would allow for W at 70% or less and so would include values with more of the refractory group element as recited).
SKLAR fails though to explicitly teach the step of diffusion bonding the coating to the metallic substrate. However, LASHMORE teaches a method of deposition a multilayer coating including a Ni-W alloy in which the deposition waveform is altered during the course of the deposition in order to deposit coatings of differing concentrations (see LASHMORE at col. 2 lines 18-39; see also col. 5 lines 54-58 teaching the alloy mixtures including Ni-W). Moreover, while LASHMORE teaches the potential for voids forming when electroplating a multilayer coating with multiple discreet layers (see LASHMORE at col. 5 lines 38-48), LASHMORE also teaches a heat treatment to allow for a diffusion annealing of the layers and to promote local homogeneity (see LASHMORE at col. 5 lines 4-15).
Additionally, BRENNER teaches that electroplating of tungsten with metals of the iron group has resulted in flaws, pits, blemishes, and cracks and suffered from poor adhesion and cohesion properties (see BRENNER at col. 2 lines 7-19). As such, the use of a heat treatment after the electroplating deposition in order to further enhance the adhesion of the electrodeposited layers of SKLAR together with one another and also with the substrate into the electrodeposited layer immediately on the surface of the substrate would have been recognized as enhancing the adhesion of the coating to the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of SKLAR a diffusion annealing treatment as taught by LASHMORE so as to eliminate some of the flaws and adhesion problems that are known to exist in tungsten alloy coatings as taught by BRENNER.
Regarding claim 2, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER teaching the method in which the waveform parameters vary from a waveform that preferentially influences the iron group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate to a waveform that preferentially influences the refractory group element to transport to the metallic substrate and to deposit on the metallic substrate (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claim 1 as to the amount of Ni and W in the second and first coatings which would have to allow for the features as claimed in order to provide for the second coating with at least 80% Ni and 1-20% W and the first coating with at least 30% up to at least 60% Ni and so 70% or less W).
Regarding claim 5 and 6, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER above fails to explicitly teach a roughening or activation of the substrate as claimed. However, BRENNER further teaches several ways of enhancing the adhesion of a Ni-W metal alloy to be plated on steel including a cleaning of the steel via an anodic electrolytic cleaning step in sulfuric acid (see BRENNER at col. 5 lines 7-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have applied this pretreatment to the steel substrate to be plated as taught by SKLAR (see SKLAR at ¶37 teaching the use of steel substrates), in order to enhance the adhesion of the Ni-W coating. Moreover, the sulfuric acid treatment would etch the surface and so both roughen the substrate and also act to etch the substrate as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cleaned the surface of the steel substrate of SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER and further as taught by BRENNER which would provide for a substrate surface which is both activated and roughened as claimed
Regarding claim 7, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER teaching the method wherein the activation is accomplished by an acid etch (see teachings of BRENNER as set forth above in the rejection of claims 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER teaching the method wherein the metallic substrate is a stainless steel material or tungsten (see SKLAR at ¶37 teaching the substrate including conductive materials and metals such as steel; see also SKLAR at ¶44 incorporating DETOR which at ¶99 teaches substrates for the compositionally graded materials formed via electrodeposition including a wide range of substrate with conductive surfaces including stainless steel)
Regarding claim 9, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER teaching the method wherein the CTE of the functionally graded coating is lower than that of the metallic substrate (see teachings of SKLAR above with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 10 teaching an overlap of the amounts of the iron group element and the refractory group element for the Ni-W alloy such that the CTE as claimed would be expected to be necessarily present as shown by Applicant’s specification at Table I since the prior art would have similar amount of Ni and W or Mo and so provide a lower CTE when compared to stainless steel).
Regarding claim 11, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER teaching the method wherein the functionally graded coating adjust the metallic substrate interface comprises 90% or greater of the iron group element (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claim 1 as to the amount of Ni and W in the second with at least 80% Ni and 1-20% W), and the functionally graded coating at its surface comprises between 25% and 60% of the refractory group element (see teachings of SKLAR cited above in the rejection of claim 1 as to the amount of Ni and W in the first coating with at least 30% up to at least 60% Ni and so 40-70% W).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 4,869,971 to Nee et al., (hereinafter referred to as “NEE”).
Regarding claim 3, while SKLAR teaches the varying of the waveform parameters (SKLAR at ¶43 teaching current density and length of time the current is applied as being plating parameters that could be varied), SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER fails to explicitly teach the varying of the electrolytic waveform parameters including varying the current density of the waveform, the length of time the waveform is applied and the time between successive waveforms. However, NEE teaches that pulse spacing, i.e. the time between successive pulses, is also an electroplating parameter (see NEE at col. 4 lines 21-36).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that SKLAR’s teaching of varying plating parameters could also extend to parameters such as pulse spacing. Moreover, since the pulse spacing would allow for a relaxing of the diffusion barrier layer and a replenishment of the ions from the immediate vicinity of the cathode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily considered this to be a parameter to additionally alter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally varied the time between successive waveforms, as recognized by NEE, in the method of SKLAR when switching between the plating parameters of the various coatings as a way of further defining the desired coating composition.
Regarding claim 4, SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE, BRENNER and NEE teaches the method in which varying the electrolytic waveform parameters further includes switching between cathodic and anodic waveforms (see SKLAR at ¶43 teaching reverse pulse plating in which the reverse pulses are anodic and the plating pulses are cathodic).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0279833 to Nasserrafi et al., (hereinafter referred to as “NASSERRAFI”) and US Pub. No. 2017/0129060 to Szuromi et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SZUROMI”).
Regarding claim 12, while SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER teaches a diffusion bonding step (see rejection of claim 1 above based on SKLAR, LASHMORE and BRENNER), SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER fails to explicitly teach the diffusion bonding including a hot isostatic pressing (“HIP”) as claimed.
However, SZUROMI teaches that HIP processing acts to remove surface defects including cracks and defects (see SZUROMI at ¶3 and ¶39). Additionally, NASSERRAFI teaches a process for the electrodeposition of an alloy (see NASSERRAFI at Abstract) in which the alloy after electrodeposition undergoes an option HIP process (see NASSERRAFI at ¶60).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a HIP treatment could be used to further reduce cracks or voids in the electrodeposit and help form a more stable coating on the article.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the diffusion annealing step of LASHMORE as modified in the process of SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER so as to include a HIP step as taught by NASSERRAFI and SZUROMI.
Regarding claim 13, while SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE, BRENNER, NASSERRAFI, and SZUROMI fails to explicitly teach the HIP parameters as claimed, it is recognized in the art that the parameters for HIP processing including temperature, time and pressure are known result effective variables and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized them in order to provide for sufficient treatment of the substrate undergoing the process.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of NEE.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, please see the grounds of rejection above with respect to claims 3 and 4 as to the grounds of rejection based on NEE which is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of BRENNER.
Regarding claims 21-23, please see the grounds of rejection above with respect to claims 5-7 as to the teachings of BRENNER, the grounds of the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER.
Regarding claim 28, please see the grounds of rejection above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 in view of SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER under 35 USC 103 which is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKLAR in view of LASHMORE and BRENNER as applied to claims 16 and 28 above, and further in view of NASSERRAFI and SZUROMI.
Regarding claim 29, please see the grounds of rejection above with respect to claims 12 and 13 above as rejected by SKLAR as modified by LASHMORE and BRENNER and further in view of NASSERRAFI and SZUROMI the grounds of rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794