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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, and the following species with a copper primer layer (upon further consideration the election of species of the primer layer is withdrawn), claims 1-2, 4-19 in the reply filed on 08/13/26 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
142
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 and 20-25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
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(s) 17 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 refers to the leveling primer and yet depends from claim 14 instead of claim 15 such that the antecedent basis for the leveling primer is unclear.
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillon (U.S. 2009/0301610) in view of Zhao (CN 109778121 see machine translation) in view of Poole (U.S. 2013/0112321) in view of Wang (U.S. 2023/0027265).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-19, Gillon teaches a metallic glass coating on a metal substrate of zirconium and copper with overlapping thickness (as in claims 6-10, see abstract, [0002], [0022], [0051]) which may be provided as multiple different layers with different compositions ([0049]) with layers closer to the substrate providing improved adhesion ([0053]) and with the overall coating on the substrate providing hardness, corrosion resistance and wear resistance ([0031], 0054]). Gillon does not teach the doped layer over the above undoped Zr and Cu metallic glass, or the claimed top layer or primer.
However, Zhao is also directed to amorphous metal (metallic glass) Zr and Cu based coatings provided on metal substrates for improved toughness, wear resistance and high temperature oxidation resistance for mechanical equipment and teaches that stainless steel (as in claim 19) is a suitable substrate for such protection and also teaches that an undoped ZrCu based metallic glass layer may be followed by a ZrCu based metallic glass doped with nitrogen (at an overlapping thickness and atomic composition relative to the elected species and the claimed ranges of claims 11-14) so that the nitrogen dopant can provide resistance to oxidation for the copper with the copper reducing the internal stress for fracture toughness ([0005], [0010]-[0013], [0023]-[0024], [0027], [0041]), such that it would have been obvious to have followed the undoped Zr Cu based metallic glass of Gillon with a Zr Cu based metallic glass doped with nitrogen in order to provide oxidation resistance and reduce the internal stress for fracture toughness, as taught by Zhao, and also to have used stainless steel as the metal substrate in Gillon because Zhao teaches it is a suitable metal substrate benefiting from such protection.
Furthermore, Poole is also directed to amorphous metallic glass coatings based on zirconium which may be doped (i.e., “impurities”) for mechanical properties (see abstract, [0070], [0073]) and discloses that a ceramic zirconium nitride surface layer (as in claims 2 and 4) of “thin micro” to nano layer thickness may be formed over the metallic glass layer to improve hardness and protect the metallic glass layer from degradation if the metallic glass includes reactive materials, such that it would have been obvious to have formed the zirconium nitride surface layer over top of the amorphous metal layers of modified Gillon as taught by Poole in order to increase hardness and protect the metallic glass layers from degradation and reaction. The above “thin micro” to nano layer thickness is considered to overlap the range of claim 5 and furthermore, the thickness of the layer would have been obvious to adjust as part of optimizing the degree of protection provided by that layer.
Furthermore, Wang is also directed to zirconium and copper based amorphous metal coatings on stainless steel substrates (see abstract, [0057]) and discloses that a diffusion preventing layer and adhesion promoting layer respectively of siloxane polymer and a metal that is present in the subsequent amorphous metal layer (e.g., copper from the Zr Cu based metallic glass layer), as in claim 16, may be provided with an overlapping thickness, as in claim 17, to prevent diffusion and promote adhesion (act as a “primer”) between the amorphous metal and the substrate, as in claim 15 ([0006]-[0013], [0055]), such that it would have been obvious to have put such siloxane and metal layers between the substrate and the first metallic glass layer in modified Gillon to prevent diffusion and promote adhesion between the amorphous metal and the substrate as taught by Wang. Such layers are inherently “leveling” to at least some degree.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 109778121 see machine translation) in view of Poole (U.S. 2013/0112321) in view of Wang (U.S. 2023/0027265).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-19, Zhao teaches a stainless steel substrate (as in claim 19) with amorphous metal (metallic glass) layers of an intermediate ZrCu layer followed by a ZrCuN layer (where nitrogen is the dopant as claimed) at an overlapping layer order, thickness, and atomic composition relative to the elected species and the claimed ranges of claims 6-14, to impart toughness, wear resistance and high temperature oxidation resistance for mechanical equipment ([0005], [0010]-[0013], [0023]-[0024], [0027], [0041]). Zhao does not disclose the claimed primer or top coat.
However, Poole is also directed to amorphous metallic glass coatings based on zirconium which may be doped (i.e., “impurities”) for mechanical properties (see abstract, [0070], [0073]) and discloses that a ceramic zirconium nitride surface layer (as in claims 2 and 4) of “thin micro” to nano layer thickness may be formed over the metallic glass layer to improve hardness and protect the metallic glass layer from degradation if the metallic glass includes reactive materials (like the copper in Zhao, which Zhao notes may be subject to oxidation, see above) ([0153]-[0154]) such that it would have been obvious to have formed the zirconium nitride surface layer over top of the amorphous metal layers of Zhao as taught by Poole in order to increase hardness and protect the metallic glass layers (especially the copper therein) from degradation and reaction. The above “thin micro” to nano layer thickness is considered to overlap the range of claim 5 and furthermore, the thickness of the layer would have been obvious to adjust as part of optimizing the degree of protection provided by that layer.
Furthermore, Wang is also directed to zirconium and copper based amorphous metal coatings on stainless steel substrates (see abstract, [0057]) and discloses that a diffusion preventing layer and adhesion promoting layer respectively of siloxane polymer and a metal that is present in the subsequent amorphous metal layer (e.g., copper from the ZrCu layer), as in claim 16, may be provided with an overlapping thickness, as in claim 17, to prevent diffusion and promote adhesion (act as a “primer”) between the amorphous metal and the substrate, as in claim 15 ([0006]-[0013], [0055]), such that it would have been obvious to have put such siloxane and metal layers between the substrate and the first metallic glass layer in modified Zhao to prevent diffusion and promote adhesion between the amorphous metal and the substrate as taught by Wang. Such layers are inherently “leveling” to at least some degree.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights