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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed June 24, 2026, claims 1 through 7 have been amended. Claims 16 and 17 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 through 17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Utsch does not teach that the tracks had widths in a radial direction is not persuasive. Utsch teaches that the cladding was done in a circular/spiral track over the surface of the surface of the substrate (Page 6 Paragraph 0065) and therefore the track widths would have been in a radial direction.
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 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper (U.S. Patent # 11,173,571) in view of Utsch et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0136257).
In the case of claims 1 and 14, Hooper teaches a laser cladding process for producing a coating layer on a surface of a component/article (Abstract and Column 6 Lines 1-11). The method of Hooper comprised applying/feeding a stock/filler material onto the surface of the article/component along with heating the filler/stock material and the component/article surface so that at least one coating trac/bead was created on the surface having a specified track width and that the deposited bead/track overlapped with a previously deposited track/bead (Column 4 Lines 25-39). Hooper further teaches that the heat source for heating the filler/stock material the article was a laser (Column 5 Lines 37-46). Furthermore, Hooper teaches that the filler/stock material and the laser processed along a trajectory to form a track of coating on the article surface (Column 8 Lines 5-14) and that the suitable surfaces for cladding included planar surfaces (Column 16 Line 64 through Column 17 Line 6).
Though Hooper teaches an embodiment wherein the trajectory was a spiral shaped path (Column 17 Lines 7-19) Hooper did not teach that the spiral shaped path was on a planar surface.
Utsch taught a laser cladding process wherein the laser cladding was conducted on a planar surface and that the cladding track was a spiral path around the surface (Abstract and Page 6 Paragraph 0065) thereby providing tracks with widths in a radial direction.
Based on the teachings of Utsch, 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 as a trajectory for the cladding process of Hooper a spiral path because this was a known cladding path/track for coating planar surfaces.
Hooper does not specifically teach that the coating layer was provided in a direction from a radial inside of the surface to a radial outside of the surface of the component or from a radial outside of the surface to a radial inside of the surface. However, 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.
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 produced the coating layer of Hooper in view of Utsch from a radial inside surface to a radial outside surface or from a radial outside surface to a radiation inside surface because the direction of coating would not have affected desired coverage of the final coating layer.
As for claims 2, 3 and 6, Hooper does not specifically teach that at least three turns or at least four turns of the at least one coating track were deposited or that the number of turns which overlapped with each other varied during production of the coating layer. 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, teaches that the overlapping of the beads/tracks affected the coating coverage over the component and the thickness of the formed coating (Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 4 and Column 21 Lines 33-44).
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 values for the number of turns/tracks and overlap between each track through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired coverage area and thickness of the formed coating.
As for claims 4 and 5, Hooper teaches that the overlap between adjacent beads/tracks was in the range of 40% to 95% of the bead/track width (Column 7 Line 57 through Column 8 Line 4), which was within the claimed ranges of at least 20% and at least 40% of the track width.
As for claim 7, Hooper teaches an embodiment wherein further turns/secondary sublayer 11 of the at least one coating rack which are formed from a second feedstock material 5B were created above the at least two turns/first sublayer 10 formed by a first feedstock material 5A in a starting and/or end region of the trajectory over the track width (Column 20 Lines 13-26 and Figure 4).
As for claim 10, Hooper teaches that the travel speed of the 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 11, Hooper teaches an embodiment wherein the component/article was configured as rotationally symmetrical by having a cylindrical shape and was rotated around an axis of rotation during cladding (Column 17 Lines 3-19).
As for claim 12, Hooper teaches that the filler/stock material was in powder form before being melted by the laser beam (Column 6 Lines 1-5).
As for claim 13, 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, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to optimize relevant process parameters through routine experimentation.
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 Hooper in view of Utsch 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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper in view of Utsch et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyserkani et al (U.S. Patent # 7,043,330).
The teachings of Hooper in view of Utsch as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 8, Hooper does not teach that a height profile of the surface coated using the ate least one track was generated by a measuring device.
Toyserkani teaches a cladding process wherein CCD-based detectors were used to monitor cladding process by measuring the clad’s dimensions (Abstract) which included the height of the deposited clad (Column 7 Lines 37-62 and Column 11 Line 64 through Column 12 Line 4). Toyserkani teaches that the information captured by the CCD-based detectors was compared with desired values in order to adjust the cladding process based on any detected errors between the desired values and the measured values (Column 9 Lines 1-13).
Based on the teachings of Toyserkani, 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 a measuring device to monitor the height profiles of the coating track formed by the process of Hooper in view of Utsch in order to detect any errors in the process and adjust the process accordingly to compensate for the detected errors.
As for claim 9, as was discussed previously, the measuring device of Toyserkani the measured height profile of the coating track was compared to a specified limiting value in the form of a desired value.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper in view of Utsch eta l as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lentz (U.S. Patent # 8,076,607).
The teachings of Hooper in view of Utsch as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 11, Hooper does not specifically 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 Hooper in view of Utsch 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 15 have been rejected. Claims 16 and 17 were previously withdrawn from consideration. 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