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 invention group I, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111850557 (CN557).
CN557 teaches a method for treating a substrate for manufacturing a piston(abstract, claim 10), comprising coating the surface of a piston with a metal layer comprising aluminum and zirconium using physical vapor deposition such as sputtering deposition[0010-0013], followed by forming a ceramic layer with zirconium oxide [0014] through micro-arc oxidation[0009, 0017-0019, 0043].
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 15-18, the Al and Zr containing metal layer as taught by CN557 reads on the claimed oxidizab3le metal layer. The method of CN557 anticipates the instant claims.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 19, CN557 further teaches that the piston made of steel{0040], a different material than the metal layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 1 of CN557 shows that the substrate is a single piece, which reads on the claimed monolithic substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hampsch et al. US 2015/0167176 (Hampsch).
Hampsch teaches a method for forming multi-layer wear-protection coating on a cutting tool make of steel([0001,0039], abstract). Hampsch further teaches that the multi-layer wear-protection coating comprises at least four individual layers deposited by PVD[0024] and the at least four individual layers are formed of different metal or metal alloys[0024,0029-0030] each having a thickness of 0.1nm to 1µm[0024]. The multi-layer wear-protection coated steel cutting tool is further subjected to anodic oxidation to form an oxide surface layer[0025]. Suitable metals for the multi-layer wear-protection coating includes Zr, Al, Ti, and Nb[0029].
Regarding claims 1-3, the Zr layer in the multi-layer wear protection coating of Hampsch reads on the claimed oxidizable metal layer based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Alternatively, the broadest scope of Hampsch includes a multi-layer wear-protection coating having Zr as one of metal layers. Hampsch further teaches that the anodic oxidation penetrates into the multi-layer wear-protection coating to a depth less than the total thickness of the coating[0038], Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the Zr layer in the multi-layer wear-protection coating of Hampsch to have been oxidized as claimed.
Regarding claim 4 and 8-9, Hampsch teaches that the cutting cool is made of steel[0039], which reads on the claimed substrate made of a different material than the metal layer.
Regarding claim 5, since the multi-layer wear-protection coating of Hampsch has at least four layers each having a thickness of 0.1nm to 1µm[0024], the Zr layer of Hampsch would have a thickness that reads on the claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Hampsch further teaches that the metal layers are applied by physical vapor deposition[0039], which reads on the claimed evaporation technique.
Regarding claims 11-12, the first two bottom layers of the at least 4 layers of the multi-layer wear-protection coating as taught by Hampsch read on the claimed first and second metal primer layers.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11-12 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN557 and further in view of Hampsch et al. US 2015/0167176 (Hampsch).
The teachings of CN557 are discussed in section 5 above.
However, the metal layer thickness of 100µm as taught by CN557 is significantly higher than the claimed 0.1-10µm as recited in claim 5. CN577 also does not explicitly teach the claimed one or more primer layers prior to applying the oxidizable metal layer as recited in claims 11 and 20 or the claimed first and second primer layer as recited in claims 12 and 21.
Hampsch teaches a method for forming multi-layer wear-protection coating on a cutting tool make of steel([0001], abstract). Hampsch further teaches that the multi-layer wear-protection coating comprises at least four individual layers deposited by PVD[0024] and the at least four individual layers are formed of different metal or metal alloys[0024,0029-0030] each having a thickness of 0.1nm to 1µm[0024]. The multi-layer wear-protection coated steel cutting tool is further subjected to anodic oxidation to form an oxide surface layer[0025].
Regarding claim 5, Hampsch teaches a different application for a steel substrate in which multiple layers of metal are applied before oxidation, wherein the metal layer thickness is 0.1nm to 1µm[0024], significantly overlapping the claimed metal layer thickness. In light of the teachings of both CN557 and Hampsch, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize the claimed metal layer thickness is a result effective variable depending on the application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have arrived at the claimed metal layer thickness via routine optimization in order to achieve desired coating results depending on the application of the coated steel product.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 20-21, it would have been obvious to have incorporated the multi-layer configuration as taught by Hampsch, which provides the claimed first and second primer layer, into the method of CN557 in order to achieve better resistance to scratching and abrasion as taught by Hampsch[0066].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampsch as applied to claim 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of WO03/035923(WO923).
The teachings of Hampsch are discussed in section 6 above. Hampsch does not explicitly teach that the PVD deposition is cathodic arc deposition as claimed.
WO923 teaches forming a steel coating on a brass substrate by physical vapor deposition and oxidizing the steel coating to form an oxide layer(abstract). WO923 further teaches that suitable physical vapor deposition methods include cathodic arc deposition(page 6 lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 7, since Hampsch does not limit the types of physical vapor deposition that is used to apply the metal layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the cathodic arc deposition technique as taught by WO923 with expected success of producing a metal coating layer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampsch as applied to claim 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 above, and further in view of CN557.
The teachings of Hampsch are discussed in section 6 above. Hampsch does not explicitly teach that the micro-arc oxidation as claimed.
The teachings of CN557 are discussed in section 5 above.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the micro-arc oxidation method as taught by CN557 into the oxidation step of Hampsch in order to form a uniformly distributed and stable ceramic layer as taught by CN557[0056-0057], and to obtain a ceramic layer with excellent anti-cold and hot alternating ability[0063].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art CN557, alone or in combination, with Hampsch does not teach the claimed Ni containing first primer layer in contact with the substrate and the claimed Cr containing second primer layer in contact with the first metal primer layer as required by instant claims 13 and 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights