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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed June 23, 2026, claims 1 and 14 have been amended and claim 15 has been cancelled. Claims 16 and 17 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 through 14, 16 and 17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument that Martin does not teach or suggest the new limitation that a first laser beam axis of the first laser beam and a second laser beam axis of the second laser beam coincide so that the coating layers are produced on the first surface and the second surface at parallel sites is not persuasive because Martin specifically teaches that the apparatuses are directly opposite one another so that the deposition was carried out simultaneously there allowing thermal stresses to be applied symmetrically to vertically placed workpiece (Page 1 Paragraph 0012). Therefore, the coating layers of Martin were produced on the first and second surfaces at parallel sites.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (U.S. Patent # 12,331,802) in view of Hooper (U.S. Patent # 11,173,571) and Martin et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0069830).
In the case of claims 1 and 5, Cho teaches a method for forming a brake body in a disc shape comprising a corrosion and wear resistant coating layer 110 formed on both sides of the brake body/rotor 120 (Abstract and Column 6 Line 56 through Column 7 Line 7). Cho further teaches that the coating layer 110 was formed by laser cladding (Column 11 Lines 4-11).
Though Cho teaches having formed the coating by laser cladding Cho does not specifically teach the steps of having directed a filler material in pulverulent form along a respective working trajectory onto the surface of the component/brake body and having heated the filler material and the component by directing a laser beam along the working trajectory so that the filler material binds to the component/brake body as the filler material meets the surface thereby forming the coating layer. However, Cho does teach that the coating was formed from an iron-based alloy/composite (Column 7 Lines 25-34).
Hooper teaches a laser cladding method for forming a corrosive and wear resistant coating on an article (Abstract and Column 12 Lines 62-67) wherein a filler material in the form of stock material was directed onto the surface of the article along with heating the stock material and article surface so that the stock material melts and binds to the surface of the article forming a coating (Column 4 Lines 25-39). Hooper teaches that the heating was conducted with a laser and that the stock material was in pulverulent/powder form (Column 5 Lines 37-46 and Column 6 Lines 1-11). Furthermore, Hooper teaches that the stock materials used in the method included iron-based composites (Column 8 Lines 48-67).
Based on the teachings of Hooper, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the laser cladding process of Hooper to form the coating layers of Cho because Hooper taught a known laser cladding process in the art for forming a wear and corrosion resistant coating comprising an iron-based alloy.
Though Cho teaches having formed the coating on both sides of the brake body and therefor on two mutually opposite surfaces neither Cho nor Hooper teach that the cladding to form the coating layers on the two mutually opposite surfaces was conducted simultaneously thereby producing coating layers on the first and second surface at least partly at a same time wherein a first laser beam axis of the first laser beam and a second laser beam axis of the second laser beam coincide so that the coating layers are produced on the first surface and the second surface at parallel sites.
Martin teaches a method for metal-coating a work piece by applying metal powder to the workpiece surface followed by locally heating/melting the powder with a laser to form a coating (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraphs 0001 and 0002). Martin teaches a method for coating two opposite sides of a brake disc workpiece by laser deposition welding using a mirror image setup wherein a deposition apparatus 25 was placed on each side of the disc/workpiece 5 which allowed for each side of the disc to be coated simultaneously (Pages 2-3 Paragraphs 0034-0035 and Figure 2). Martin further teaches that the deposition apparatuses were position directly opposite one another so that the thermal stresses applied to the workpiece was symmetrical thereby avoiding undesired distortions (Page 1 Paragraph 0012). Since the deposition apparatuses of Martin were directly opposite each other the laser beam axis of each apparatus would have coincided to produce coating layers at parallel sites on each side of the workpiece.
Based on the teachings of Martin, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the laser cladding method of Cho in view of Hooper on the two mutually opposite surfaces of the component/brake disc of Cho simultaneously using a mirror-image setup with deposition apparatus directly opposite each other in order to coat both sides of the brake disc of Cho at the same time and avoid undesirable distortions of the component during cladding.
As for claim 2, Hooper teaches that for cylindrical components the working trajectory of deposition was in a spirally directed path (Column 17 Lines 7-19).
As for claim 3, Hooper teaches that the travel speed for cladding was 4,000 to 40,000 mm/min or 4 to 40 m/min (Column 8 Lines 20-28), which overlapped with the required speed of at least 20 m/min. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 4, as was discussed previously, the component of Cho was a brake disc and therefore was in a rotationally symmetric form. Furthermore, both Hooper (Column 16 Lines 52-63) and Martin (Page 3 Paragraph 0035) teach that the article/workpiece to be coated was rotated during deposition.
As for claims 6-8, Hooper teaches that the filler material/feedstock material was directed onto the surface of the component vie tube injectors in the form of nozzles and at least two nozzles were used (Column 6 Lines 45-48 and Column 7 Lines 20-23). The teaching of using at least wo nozzles/injectors overlaps with the required limitation of at least three injectors and as was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Furthermore, Hooper teaches that the exit angle of the injectors/nozzles with respect to the normal direction of the component surface was in the range of 0 to 90 degrees (Column 6 Lines 49-64), which overlapped with the required range of less than 60 degrees and as was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As for claim 9, Hooper teaches that the stock material/filler material was directed using a conveying gas (Column 7 Lines 11-14). However, Hooper does not teach that the gas had a relative atomic mass of a least 4 and/or a specific volume flow rate of at least 3.2 1 (STP)/min per mm2 of a cross-section area. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal volume flow rate for the conveying gas of Cho in view of Hooper and Martin through routine experimentation because the volume flow rate or the conveying gas affected the amount of stock material/filler material deposited onto the component surface.
As for claim claims 10 and 14, none of the references teach that the coating layers were provided in a direction from a relative inside of the surface to a relative outside of the surface of the component and that different amounts of filler material were feed to the first and second surfaces of the component. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A. Furthermore, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP section 2144.04.IV.C.
Hooper teaches having controlled the movement of the heat source/laser (Column 8 Lines 5-28 and Column 17 Lines 7-19) and feed rate of material (Column 7 Lines 47-56) in order to achieve a desired coating thickness along a predetermined pattern (Column 20 Lines 1-12).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal movement rate and profile for the lasers and filler material application rates of Cho in view of Hooper and Martin through routine experimentation because these variables affected the thickness of the deposited coating.
As for claim 12, none of the references teach that the laser power output of a first laser beam directed onto a first surface of the two surfaces was at least twice as high as a laser power output for a second laser beam directed onto the second opposite surface of the two surfaces. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal ranges/values for relevant process parameters and Hooper teaches that the laser power output affected to depth of melting of the surface of the component during cladding (Column 5 Lines 64-67).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal laser power outputs for the first and second lasers of Cho in view of Hooper and Martin through routine experimentation because the laser power output affected the depth of melting of the component surface.
As for claim 13, Martin teaches that the deposition apparatuses comprising the lasers were moved by a common advancing unit in the form of at least one movement apparatus which was a part of a single coating device (Page 3 Claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al in view of Hooper and Martin et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lentz (U.S. Patent # 8,076,607).
The teachings of Cho in view of Hooper and Martin as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 11, none of the references teach that the laser beam axis was inclined at an angle of incidence in the range of from greater than 0 to 35 degrees relative to the respective surface.
Lentz teaches a method for laser cladding (Abstract and Column 4 Lines 7-25) wherein the laser beam had an angle relative to the surface of the substrate being coated to no more than 10 degrees (Column 4 Lines 26-39).
Based on the teachings of Lentz, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have set the laser beam axis of Cho in view of Hooper and Martin at an angle of incidence of no more than 10 degrees relative to the surface of the component because this was a known laser angle in the art. Furthermore, the range of no more than 10 degrees overlapped with the claimed range of greater than 0 to 35 degrees. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 14 have been rejected. Claims 16 and 17 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights