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.
Claims 47, 51-58 are 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 47 recites the limitation "the guanidine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose it is considered claim 47 depends on claim 46.
For claims 51, 54-58, it is not clear what the applicant means by” wherein at least one of” it should read as; the method of claim 50, wherein at least one of the following conditions has been met.
Claim 52: it is not clear what the applicant means by “the heating”, for examination it is considered as applying laser light.
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 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]. 659 does not teach heating the surface portion comprising applying laser light. 684 teaches a method for treating an article 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 HCl [0026].
Claim 48 is rejected as 659 teaches the reagent (coating) comprises
Urea [0059 last sentence].
Claim 49 is rejected. 684 teaches the laser light is co-linear coherent laser light [fig. 2].
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 52 is rejected as 684 teaches introducing an inert gas (Ar) into an
environment of the article prior to or simultaneously with the heating (laser treatment) [fig. 2, 0041].
Claim 53 is rejected as 684 teaches the inert gas prevents oxidizing of the surface portion [0049].
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 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 60 is rejected. Claim 60 is a product claim and method of manufacturing the uncoated article would not read in it, because it does not change the structure of the article.
Claim 61 is rejected. 659 and 684 teach performing the method of claim 43, with apparatus, such as applying reagent with spraying (659) [0056] and applying laser (684) [0049], therefore meets the claim limitation.
Claim 62 is rejected. 659 and 684 teach performing the method of claim 43, with a system, such as applying reagent with spraying (659) [0056] and applying laser (654) [0049], therefore meets the claim limitation.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christina Semkow et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0340659, here after 659), Jian-Hua Yao et al (Chinese Patent: 101812684, here after 684), further in view of Cyprian Adair William Illing et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0072618, here after 618).
Claim 60 is rejected. 659 does not teach the article is made by additive manufacturing method. 618 teaches surface modification and surface hardening when the article is made by additive manufacturing [abstract]. 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, and 684 where the article is made by additive manufacturing, because it is suitable way to make article for surface strengthening coating method.
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