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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11, 19 and 21 in the reply filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 19 refers to “solution treatment” which could be misinterpreted using the plain meaning to be a solution is used to treat the deposited material. However, in view of the specification the term solution treatment itself is recognized as a term of art for heat treatment and quenching of alloys allowing the formation of a solid solution. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that no wet “solution” is ever described in the specification.
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 2-5, 9-11, 19 and 21 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 2 in the last line and third to last line refers to “machining processing treatment”. It is not clear what step this is referring to. The claim is further limiting steps that include a “subtractive processing treatment”. It is not clear if the machining processing treatment is further limiting the subtractive processing treatment or if it is referring to a different/additional step.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2 and also refer to “machine processing treatment”.
Claim 5 states that defects are categorized into point, linear and planar defects before assigning particular spray processes for each type. However, the claim does not clearly define the different defects. Without clear definitions, there is ambiguity as to when a point defect becomes a linear defect or is large enough to be a planar defect. Claim 6 resolves the ambiguity.
Claim 9 in the last line requires preheating and spraying defective areas subjected to sandblasting. However, it is not clear what material is being sprayed onto the defective areas. In contrast, claim 1 which uses a spraying step and a subsequent subtractive remanufacturing step. The subsequent subtractive remanufacturing step implicitly requires the spraying step to be a deposition of material. Claim 9 merely refers to spraying which could be any process such as an air spray for cleaning or a deposition spray. This is further complicated because the spraying step in claim 9 occurs before the classification and spraying of claim 1.
Claim 10 incorporates the issues from claim 9 by dependency and is also rejected.
Claim 11 does eventually clarify the spraying is an aluminum alloy powder and nitrogen gas. However claim 11 also includes a drying temperature without a drying step. It is also unclear how the aluminum alloy powder is used for preheating. If the powder is used for heating, it is heating and depositing at the same time and therefore not preheating by definition.
Claim 19 contains a broad range followed by a narrow range when describing surface roughness. In addition, the steps are not related to each other. Step 2 requires “using” the aluminum alloy powder of claim 13 for high-pressure cold spraying but does not state how it is used in relation to the sand blasting step. Applicant could be referring to a spraying process of a different substrate in a different facility and a different process (manufacturing instead of repair). Likewise step 3 requires performing a “solution treatment” on a workpiece that has been “repaired by spraying”. There is no antecedent basis for a workpiece that has been repaired by spraying. The spraying can be corrected by clarifying the high-pressure cold spraying is repairing the workpiece.
Claim 19 also uses relative terms “high-pressure” and “cold” spraying. These terms are resolved in claim 21. The “cold” spray is particularly misleading because it is actually performed 350-500°C (which is very much heated) and the same temperature as the solution treatment (solution anneal/heat treatment).
Claim 21 incorporates the issues from claim 19 by dependency and is also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOKAPPA et al. (US 2022/0138701) in view of CHOI et al. (US 2017/0369187), MA et al. (US 2020/0232592), and KALINOWSKI et al. (US 3,533,667).
Regarding claim 1,
CHOKAPPA teaches a method for repairing a component by detecting a defect and classifying the defect type abstract. The component is scanned for measurements which are used to detect defects [0040]. The defects can be pits [0020]. By classifying the defects, the best repair process can be chosen [0020] (repair is based upon the classification type). The repair can be done by additive manufacturing [0019]. The reference does not expressly teach removing corrosion layers during repair. However, CHOI teaches a method of repairing damaged substrate abstract. The method includes removing material from the damaged area to form a recess and spraying material into the recess [0019] and fig. 1. After filling the recess, the excess material is machined (subtractive remanufacturing to original size) [0019] and fig. 1, 5 and 6. The repair process of CHOI can strengthen the substrate at the damaged site [0003]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to perform the repair according to CHOI to improve the strength of the repaired area.
CHOI teaches removing material around a defect but does not expressly teach removing corroded layers. However, MA teaches that when repairing defects using additive manufacturing abstract, corrosion is removed to clean the defect area [0035]. The repair is then performed using a sprayer [0007]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the corroded layers to allow for a clean substrate during subsequent repair.
The references teach repairing corroded components but do not expressly teach that journal boxes (train/rail car components) being repaired. However, the corrosion of journal boxes is a known problem according to KALINOWSKI column 1 lines 22-38. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to repair a journal box as the corroded component because they are known components that corrode and rust and would benefit from repair.
Regarding claim 2,
CHOKAPPA teaches detecting, classifying and labeling defect (pit) areas. The defect detection includes measurements for maximum depth, and boundary points (range for machining processing treatment) [0026].
Regarding claim 4,
CHOI teaches removing material around the defect using chamfered edges [0035] (“fillet transition”) as shown in fig. 4. The angling needs to be steep enough to limit the overall width of the taper, but shallow enough to encourage plastic deformation and adherence (surface area) of the repair material [0035]. The reference does not teach a particular angle as less than 30°. However, the angling is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill in the art could choose an angle that is steep enough to limit the size of the repair while also ensuring it is shallow enough to offer sufficient surface area for adherence, MPEP 2144.05.II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11, 19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 5, 9-11, 19 and 21 also require correction of 112 issues.
Regarding claim 3,
The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching measuring several corrosion pits with a depth calibrator and determining the range for machine procession (subtractive processing) for the several pits based on the maximum comparative depth. The claim depends from claim 2 which already measures and determines ranges for machine processing treatment. The defect area is also smaller than the range for machining processing treatment while the subtractive processing treatment occurs within the range for machining processing treatment.
Regarding claim 5,
The examiner was unable to find prior art expressly teaching the traveling directions of the spray gun based upon the classification of the defect.
Regarding claim 7,
The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching the repair process of claim 1 that further includes a laser cleaning and surface cleaning process of a damaged position before the size measurement and corrosion removal step.
Regarding claim 9,
The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching that before performing classification of the defect, but after removal of corrosion layers (subtractive processing treatment, holes in the journal box are filled with plugs and sand blasted.
Depending claims 6, 8, 10 and 11 are allowable by virtue of dependency.
Regarding claims 19 and 21,
CHEHAB et al. (US 2023/0191489) teaches a powder alloy material that can be deposited by cold spray [0169] and [0184]. CHEHAB uses less Zn [0025], more Zr [0022], 2% Mg [0024], overlapping Cu [0026], overlapping Ti and Nd [0027], overlapping Sr [0028] with a remainder of Al [0032]. The reference does not teach the use of carbon (c) in the composition. In addition, the wording of the composition in claim 13 requires a balance of the defined components to be aluminum which precludes additional other elements from being added to the composition. If an additional component was added, the balance no longer be Al. The balance would be Al and that other component. CHEHAB also notes that the compositions are designed to not require solution treatment [0100]. The examiner could not motivate changing the composition in a way that would then require the additional step of solution treating when it is specifically not preferred.
WANG (CN 108467979) teaches overlapping Zn, overlapping Mg, overlapping Cu, overlapping Ti, overlapping Zr, overlapping rare earth such as Nd, and overlapping Sr abstract. This reference also does not use the required carbon (C) and incorporates boron in addition to the balance of Al abstract. This alloy is used for casting/smelting. The examiner was unable to motivate changing the composition in addition to changing the method of deposition.
The CN109439960 reference provided in the IDS teaches performing a repair that includes a sand blasting step before cold spraying a powder alloy. The sand blasting is used to improve adhesion of the powder. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to perform a sand blasting step to improve the adhesion of particles applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights