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 § 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.
Claims 43-62, 50-51, 54-59, 63-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christina Semkow et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0340659, here after 659), further in view of Jian-Hua Yao et al (Chinese Patent: 101812684, here after 684).
Claim 43 is rejected. 659 teaches a method for treating an article made of self-
passivating metal to improve the surface properties (surface hardness) of the metal
including:
applying reagent to a surface portion of the article; and
heating the surface portion of the article to chemically activate the reagent,
wherein the chemical activating of the reagent treats the surface portion thereby
modifying hardness of the surface portion [abstract, 0032]. Since 659 teaches heat treatment at low temperature, therefore heat is insufficient to cause grain growth in the surface portion of the article (article is steel alloy and grain growth happens above 900C) [0061, 0074, 0090]. 659 does not teach heating the surface portion comprising applying laser light. 684 teaches a method for treating an
to improve surface property (surface strengthening or hardness, comprising
applying reagent to surface of the article and heating it by laser beam [0045-0050, 0021, 0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 659 where the heating is done with laser source, because it is suitable way to heat coating on article and form surface strengthening coating.
Claim 44 is rejected. 659 teaches applying the reagent comprises applying the
reagent via atomized spraying [0056], which in fact comprises at least one of a jet of
powder, a jet of liquid, or a jet of vapor.
Claim 45 is rejected. 659, and 684 teach the limitation of claim 43 as discussed
above, and 659 teaches the applying the reagent (e.g. spraying) [0067], which in fact
comprising applying the reagent and applying the laser light to another surface portion
of the article (spraying one side of the article and turning it to spray the other side).
Claim 46 is rejected as 659 teaches the reagent comprises guanidine
functionality [0026].
Claim 47 is rejected as 659 teaches the guanidine functionality comprises
biguanide HCI [0026].
Claim 48 is rejected as 659 teaches the reagent (coating) comprises
Urea [0059 last sentence].
Claim 50 is rejected. 684 teaches wherein a laser that produces the laser light
comprises at a solid-state laser (Nd:YAG)[0028].
Claim 51 is rejected is rejected as 684 teaches the solid-state laser comprises at
least one of a yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser [0028].
Claim 54 is rejected as 684 teaches the applying the laser light causes a
chemical reaction in the article [0009, 0014].
Claim 55 is rejected as 659 teaches a pressure in an environment of the article is
1 ATM or above(pressurized) [0059 last sentence]; and the treating comprises
hardening the article [abstract].
Claim 56 is rejected as 659 teaches increasing abrasion resistance, and
corrosion resistance of the surface portion [0059].
Claim 57 is rejected as 659 teaches the treating of the metal (surface portion) occurs while the article is in fabrication process [0058].
Claim 58 is rejected. 659 teaches the article comprises self-passivating
metal[abstract]; and comprises cleaning the surface portion prior to the applying reagent
comprises at least one of cleaning by reactive means (removing Beilby layer by
chemical etching) [0017], and the article comprising stainless steel alloy 316L [0090
lines 9-12], and nickel-based alloy, or a cobalt based alloy [0005], the article has a
Beilby layer [abstract], the article is forged [0015].659 also teaches surface portion has
a coherent passivation protective, comprising chromium oxide layer [0015].
Claim 59 is rejected. 659 and 684 teach performing the method of claim 43 on a
work peace, therefore article prepared by the method is also taught.
Claim 63 is rejected as 659 teaches heating caused is sufficient to cause pyrolysis of the reagent [0061].
Claim 64 is rejected. 659 teaches depassivates the article from in the surface portion (making the protective oxide coating transparent to the passage of carbon and/or nitrogen atoms is also known and referred to herein as depasssivating based on 0010 of the specification) [0090].
Claim 65 is rejected. 659 teaches the applying reagent and the applying heat are performed simultaneously [0058].
Claims 66 and 68 are rejected. 659 teaches a method for treating an article made of self-passivating metal to improve the surface properties(hardness) of the metal comprising:
applying a reagent comprising a source of carbon and/or nitrogen to a specific portion of the surface of the article; and
applying heat to the reagent disposed on the specific portion of the article to pyrolyze the reagent and cause carbon and/or nitrogen pyrolysis products of the reagent to diffuse into the specific portion of the surface via carburizing, nitriding, or nitrocarburizing [abstract, 0032, 0090], thereby improving a surface property of the specific portion of the surface of the article. 659 does not teach heating the surface portion comprising applying laser light. 684 teaches a method for treating an
to improve surface property (surface strengthening or hardness, comprising
applying reagent to surface of the article and heating it by laser beam(localized) [0045-0050, 0021, 0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 659 where the heating is done with laser source, because it is suitable way to heat coating on article and form surface strengthening coating.
Claim 67 is rejected as 659 teaches the reagent comprises at least one of a guanidine functionality association [0090].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/04/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Tao teaches using laser to melt TiC/TiN coating where the invention does not require melting the coating. However, Semkow teaches heating the coating at low temperature, and Yao is cited to use laser light as heating source for metal carbide or nitride coatings, where an ordinary skill person in art can adjust laser intensity to heat coating.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights