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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 is indefinite because 'the largest portion" lacks positive antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arden (US3000829) in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2010/0326466A1; previously cited in PTO 892 of 1/7/2026).
It appears that applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 2.
Arden teaches descaling metal parts for the removal of oxide deposits (col. 2, lines 40-45), including chromium oxide (Cr2O3) scale deposits (col. 1, lines 50-55). Col. 3, lines 40-65 teaches engine parts pretreated with an alkaline solution, followed by treatment with an alkaline permanganate solution, followed by post treatment of an alkaline solution for complete and rapid removal of loosened and conditioned scale. Col. 4, lines 15-16 teaches sodium or potassium permanganate. In summary, Arden et al. teach treating with a high concentration of alkali, followed by an alkaline permanganate solution, followed by post treatment with an alkali solution for complete, efficient and rapid removal of scale deposits.
Re claims 1 and 4, Arden fails to teach or suggest the main washing steps of sodium permanganate in combination with an alkali metal hydroxide oxidizing the chromium to form Cr2O3 which is then dissolved. Kawakami et al. teach a method of regenerating a turbine blade comprising washing with a strong alkaline washing solution (abstract, paragraph 12) comprising a permanganate solution (paragraph 88), which serves as an oxidizing agent which oxidizes and dissolves Cr2O3 (paragraphs 89, 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Arden, to include oxidation and dissolution of Cr2O3, as taught by Kawakami et al., as a result of reaction with the hydroxide/ permanganate solution. Additionally, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the formation and dissolution of Cr2O3, and it appears that Cr2O3 is a result of reaction of the chromium with the hydroxide/permanganate solution. Since Arden is performing the same steps of reaction of the chromium with the hydroxide/permanganate solution, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the formation of Cr2O3. Re claim 4, the limitations are met since the highly alkaline solutions for the pre and post treatment include concentrations of 10-25 percent alkali metal hydroxide (col. 5, lines 5-10) as compared to the alkali solution used in the permanganate solution, wherein the alkali solution in the permanganate solution is 1-25 percent col. 3-4 bridging). Re claim 6, the limitations of a resolvent, reads on any solvent, including the dilution of the alkaline solution with water (col. 7, lines 50-51). Re claim 9, refer to col. 3, lines 60-65. Re claims 10-11, refer to col. 7, lines 50-55, col. 8, lines 30-40, col. 9, lines 10-15. Re claim 14, refer to Arden which teaches a diluted alkali metal hydroxide and an alkali metal permanganate, which would include alkalis such as potassium and sodium, which are conventionally known in the art, as evidenced by Brooks (US6454870B1).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arden (US3000829) in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2010/0326466A1) and further in view of Brooks (US 6454870AB1).
Re claims 3, 5, 7, and 15, Arden in view of Kawakami et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of a surfactant. Brooks teaches a method of removing chromium oxide coating by treating with an alkaline permanganate solution. Col. 3, lines 50-55 teaches sodium or potassium permanganate. Brooks further teaches the pre-washing step (step 52) to include an alkaline degreasing solution comprising sodium gluconate (i.e. mild detergent) and a wetting agent (i.e. surfactant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Arden to include the addition of a surfactant to the alkaline solution, as taught by Brooks, for purposes of aiding in the removal of contaminants during the removal of the chromium oxide coating. Additionally, the use of surfactants in alkaline solutions for removal of deposits is well known in the art, as further evidenced by Brooks et al.
Miyazaki et al. teach an alkaline based surfactant for treatment of scale removal.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arden (US3000829) in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2010/0326466A1) and further in view of Akiyoshi et al. (CA2484285A1).
It is noted that CA2484285A1 is the English Equivalence to the prior art of WO2004/029329 (page 3), directed to forming a coating in paragraph 3 of the instant specification.
Arden in view of Kawakami et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the discharge surface treatment coating having a porous metallic structure and the coating formed from a cobalt alloy containing cobalt, chromium and silicon, with a larger portion comprising cobalt. Akiyoshi et al. teach a method of forming a coating with resistant properties (pages 10, 12) on turbine blade by an electrical discharge surface treatment, wherein the coating comprises chromium oxide or a mixture of chromium oxide and silicon ( page 14), with an alloy of cobalt as a major component (page 28), wherein the coating comprises a porous structure (page 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Arden to include a discharge surface coating having a porous structure and comprising a cobalt alloy comprising chromium, silicon and cobalt, as taught by Akiyoshi et al., for purposes of providing heat and wear resistant coating layer having lubricating properties of use with turbine blades.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arden (US3000829) in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2010/0326466A1) and further in view of Xie et al. (CN101566077B, machine translation).
Arden in view of Kawakami et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the thickness of the coating within the claimed range. Xie et al. teach a turbine blade comprising a chromium based composite coating (abstract) having a Cr2O3/SiO2 coating by electrical discharge within the range of 35 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Arden et al. to include a chromium coating having a thickness within the claimed range, as taught by Xie et. al., for purposes of providing a coating having high hardness and good corrosion resistance properties.
Response to Arguments
11. The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
12. The rejections of the claims, as being anticipated by Brooks or Arden are withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims.
13. The rejections of the claims as being unpatentable over Arden in view of the secondary references are maintained for the reasons set forth above. The newly amended limitations directed to Cr2O3 are taught by Kawakami et al., for the reasons recited above.
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights