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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 16-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/3/2025.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleyman et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0353856).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 14 and 15, Kleyman teaches a method for applying a coating (claim 8) comprising: providing a mixture of powders (0030) comprising a cobalt-based alloy, a tungsten carbide material (0030) and no chromium carbide (see throughout and Examples 1-3, 0062-0067); and spraying the mixture onto a metallic substrate (0040) by HVOF spraying (0033). Kleyman teaches that the tungsten carbide material can be selected from a group including WC-Ni (0031) and that the cobalt-based alloy comprises 27-29 wt% Cr 0.8-1.2 wt% C, 0% Ni and Co as the largest constituent (0031). Kleyman also teaches that the substrate can be a seal substrate, in particular, a seal counterface in a gate valve and that the spraying is to the seal counterface contact surface (0040). Kleyman fails to teach an example where the tungsten carbide material is WC-Ni and fails to explicitly teach that the volume percent of the cobalt alloy in the mixture is 10-60% or more specifically 12-55% or 30-60% whereas the tungsten carbide is present in the mixture in a volume percent of 5-70% or more specifically 10-65% or 40-70%.
First, while Kleyman fails to teach an exemplary embodiment in which WC-Ni is the tungsten carbide material, Kleyman makes clear that WC-Ni is an alternative that can be selected for the tungsten carbide material (0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute WC-Ni for the tungsten carbide material of the example. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Kleyman specifically teaches that WC-Ni is usable in the process), and the predictable result of providing a mixture of powders for HVOF spraying.
Second, Kleyman fails to teach the volume percent of the powders in the mixture as claimed. However, Kleyman teaches adjusting the amounts of each of the powders to arrive at preferable mixtures (0032). Furthermore, the amount of each type of powder will alter properties, such as the wear resistance and corrosion resistance of the sprayed coating (0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claim 7, Kleyman makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach spraying to a thickness of 75-130 microns. However, the thickness of the sprayed coating will have to be adjusted based on intended use and can be controlled by amount of time the spraying is conducted for. Additionally, spraying to different thicknesses will necessarily alter the wear characteristics of the resultant coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for thickness through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claim(s) 3-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleyman in view of Berger et al. (“Microstructure and properties of HVOF-sprayed chromium alloyed WC-Co and WC-Ni coatings”).
I. Regarding claims 3, 4 and 13, Kleyman makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1, including the ranges for the amounts of WC-Ni and cobalt-based alloys in the powder mixture as noted above, but fails to teach the inclusion of Cr3C2 in an amount of 50-80 volume%.
First, Berger teaches a similar coating process using HVOF spraying (abstract) comprising a WC-Ni coatings with chromium as an additional alloying element (abstract), wherein the chromium is provided as Cr3C2 (Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kleyman’s process by including Cr3C2 in the powder mixture. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Berger teaches that the inclusion of the Cr3C2 provides improved resistance to erosive wear (abstract).
Second, Kleyman in view of Berger fail to explicitly teach the amount of Cr3C2. However, Kleyman teaches adjusting the amounts of each of the powders to arrive at preferable mixtures (0032). Furthermore, the amount of each type of powder will alter properties, such as the wear resistance and corrosion resistance of the sprayed coating (see Kleyman at 0030) and the amount of chromium will alter the resistance to erosive wear (see Berger at abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claim 5, Kleyman makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the WC-Ni is agglomerated and sintered. However, as noted above, Berger teaches a similar HVOF spraying process using WC-Ni (see above), and Berger also teaches that the WC-Ni that is used is agglomerated and sintered (Section 2, page 4417). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kleyman’s process by substituting agglomerated and sintered WC-Ni powder for the generic WC-Ni powder of Kleyman. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one WC-Ni powder for another with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that both Kleyman and Berger are using the powders in a similar HVOF spray coating process), and the predictable result of providing a mixture of powders for thermal spray coating.
3. Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleyman in view of Stoyanov et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11255432).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kleyman makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the cobalt-based alloy comprising the components as claimed in claims 8 and 9 in the amounts as claimed.
However, Stoyanov teaches a cobalt-based alloy powder comprising Co as a largest constituent, up to 3 wt% Ni, up to 2 wt% silicon, up to 2 wt% Mn, up to 3 wt% iron, 28-32 wt% chromium, 0.9-1.4 wt% carbon, 3.5-5.5 wt% tungsten, 0 wt% P, 0 wt% S, and up to 1.5 wt% Mo at Table 1 (all ranges which overlap with the ranges claimed in claims 8 and 9, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Further, Stoyanov teaches the use of this cobalt-based alloy powder in a similar process for HVOF spraying to sealing components (abstract column 4, lines 43-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Stoyanov’s cobalt-based alloy powder for the cobalt-based alloy powder in Kleyman’s powder mixture. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Stoyanov teaches that the alloy powder having these specific elements provides enhanced wear resistance (column 4, lines 1-6).
Conclusion
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
November 21, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717