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
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I drawn to a process for protection of mechanical elements, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
As Applicant has not presented arguments against the Restriction and has not indicated that the election is done with traverse, it is assumed that Applicant’s election is done without traverse. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 22-28) in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000014680, filed on 07/13/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 24-25 and 27-28, these claims include the phrase “preferably between”, or “preferably not greater” or “preferably a high-strength steel”, it is unclear if the limitation following the word “preferably” is a necessary part of the claim.
For the purposes of substantive examination, the limitations in these claims following the word preferably are assumed to be required limitations.
Claim 26 is also rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) due to its dependency to claim 25.
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.
Claims 22, 24 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 3262197 A1) in view of Vasinko et al. (US 20210105888 A1, hereinafter Vasinko) and Zhao et al. (CN 114737148 A, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 22, Peck discloses a coated mechanical element for holding metallic components to be subjected to welding, said mechanical element being made of a metallic material and designed to be located in proximity to components to be welded during welding operations (Section 1, lines 16-20, “In many types of welding operations, it is desirable or necessary to clamp two or more work pieces together temporarily by means of screw type damps, while the work pieces are being welded to secure them together permanently.”, and Section 1, lines 63-66, “To attain the above results, I ,coat the threads of the adjusting screw with a coating consisting essentially of a tin-metal-phosphate complex, in which the metal is the metal from which the screw is formed.”, where the clamp connects two or more work pieces to be welded, where the work pieces are components to be welded during welding operations),
said coated mechanical element comprising at least one surface at least partially coated with a coating layer, said coating layer being configured to protect the mechanical element against adhesion of weld residues and spatter (Section 3, lines 29-34, “In the preferred form of the invention, the coating 36 is not limited to merely the screw 22, but may be provided on all surfaces of all of the various parts 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 32 of the clamp. In this way, all of the various parts are rendered completely spatter-proof.”, and Section 4, lines 56-59, “a coating thereon consisting essentially of a tin metal-phosphate complex in which the metal is that from which the threads are formed and to which coating molten spattered welding material will not effectively adhere.”).
Peck does not disclose:
wherein said coating layer comprises aluminum deposited from aluminum powder by a plasma deposition process forming a metallurgically bonded aluminum layer on said surface.
However, Vasinko discloses, in the similar field of mechanical elements associated with welding spatters (Abstract, “nozzles for arc torches are described herein comprising refractory coatings for increasing nozzle operational lifetimes via resistance to weld splatter and the associated accumulation of molten metal deposits.”), where the coating layer can comprise of aluminum (Para. 0010, “a nozzle for an arc torch comprises a first body including a central bore and an exterior surface. A coating is adhered to the exterior surface by thermal spray, physical vapor deposition (PVD), or chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the coating comprising a refractory layer including one or more metallic elements selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon and metallic elements of Groups IIIB-VIIIB of the Periodic Table and one or more non-metallic elements selected from Groups IIIA, IVA, VA, and VIA of the Periodic Table.”, where thermal spray includes plasma deposition processes like plasma plating or plasma transferred arc thermal spraying, where in a plasma spraying technique the material to be deposited is typically a powder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_spraying). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer in Peck to be made of aluminum as taught by Vasinko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to select from a wide array of materials that all can achieve the same end result of preventing weld spatters from sticking to the surface, where the selection of a specific material would be a mere matter of user design choice, as stated by Vasinko, Para. 0010, “A coating is adhered to the exterior surface by thermal spray, physical vapor deposition (PVD), or chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the coating comprising a refractory layer including one or more metallic elements selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon and metallic elements of Groups IIIB-VIIIB of the Periodic Table and one or more non-metallic elements selected from Groups IIIA, IVA, VA, and VIA of the Periodic Table.”, and where the coating allows for increased longevity of the mechanical element, Para. 0003, “refractory coatings for increasing nozzle operational lifetimes via resistance to weld splatter and the associated accumulation of molten metal deposits.”.
Further Zhao discloses, in the similar field of applying coatings to materials through thermal spraying processes (Abstract, “metal spraying technical field”, and Page 2, Para. 2, “common coating method”), where material in powder form can undergo plasma transferred arc technique in order to form a metallurgically bonded layer on the surface (Page 5, Para. 5, “arc plasma transferred to the titanium alloy particles”, and Page 2, Para. 6 from end, “a magnetic rotating arc negative electrode the central powder plasma metallurgy melting spraying process, the process can cause the metal surface section area is about the liquid drop section, depth is about 10 um of material layer transient melting and spraying metal powder droplets to form metallurgical fusion bonding”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal spraying process for the aluminum coating layer in modified Peck to use plasma transferred arc technique to create a metallurgical bond as taught by Zhao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a plasma technique that results in a coating layer that has a stronger tensile strength, which exceeds the tensile strength obtained through common plasma spraying processes, as stated by Zhao, Page 2, Para. 6 from end, “the process can cause the metal surface section area is about the liquid drop section, depth is about 10um of material layer transient melting and spraying metal powder droplets to form metallurgical fusion bonding, the tensile strength of the metallurgical melting plating layer can reach 600MPa, far exceeds the mechanical occluding plating layer formed by common plasma spraying process.”.
Regarding claim 24, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, as set forth above.
Modified Peck does not disclose:
wherein said coating layer deposited by said plasma deposition process has a total thickness of between 0.1 μm and 1000 μm, preferably between 5 μm and 500 μm.
However, Zhao discloses where the coating layer deposited by the plasma deposition process has a total thickness of 10 μm (Page 6, last Para., “Therefore, the molten titanium alloy particles are sprayed at a speed of 2000m/s to the surface of the aluminum alloy to be plated with a surface aluminum alloy with a thickness of 10 microns”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer thickness in modified Peck to be of the value as taught by Zhao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a plasma technique that results in a coating layer that has a stronger tensile strength, which exceeds the tensile strength obtained through common plasma spraying processes, as stated by Zhao, Page 2, Para. 6 from end, “the process can cause the metal surface section area is about the liquid drop section, depth is about 10um of material layer transient melting and spraying metal powder droplets to form metallurgical fusion bonding, the tensile strength of the metallurgical melting plating layer can reach 600MPa, far exceeds the mechanical occluding plating layer formed by common plasma spraying process.”.
Regarding claim 27, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, as set forth above.
Modified Peck does not disclose:
wherein the coating layer has a surface roughness Ra not greater than 0.6 μm, preferably not greater than 0.4 μm, said surface roughness Ra being achieved by said plasma deposition process alone or by a subsequent surface finishing operation selected from the group consisting of mechanical polishing, lapping, and electropolishing.
However, Vasinko discloses where the coating layer has a surface roughness Ra not greater than 0.4 μm, where the surface roughness is achieved through a polishing post-coat treatment (Para. 0022, “In other embodiments, the refractory layer is subjected to a polishing post-coat treatment…In some embodiments, a refractory layer subjected to post-coat treatment has a surface roughness (Ra) selected from Table III.”, where Table III shows surface roughness values of less than 500 nm). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer in modified Peck to have the specific surface roughness values as taught by Vasinko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use post-coat treatments to achieve coating layers with specific parameters, where the surface roughness can be altered and the residual compressive stress in the layer can also be altered depending on a user’s design needs, as stated by Vasinko, Para. 0022, “A refractory layer described herein can be blasted or polished for a time period sufficient to achieve a desired surface roughness (RJ and/or other parameters, such as increasing residual compressive stress in the refractory layer.”.
Regarding claim 28, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, as set forth above, discloses wherein the surfaces of said mechanical element on which said aluminum powder coating layer is applied are made of a ferrous alloy, in particular steel, preferably a high-strength steel having a melting temperature higher than or equal to the melting temperature of the metallic components to be welded together (Peck, Section 3, lines 54-56, “metal of the complex is the metal employed in forming the screw or other coated part.· This metal is normally steel, iron, or a ferrous alloy.”).
Claims 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 3262197 A1) in view of Vasinko et al. (US 20210105888 A1, hereinafter Vasinko) and Zhao et al. (CN 114737148 A, hereinafter Zhao) in further view of Lakshminarayanan et al. (“Predicting the Dilution of Plasma Transferred Arc Hardfacing of Stellite on Carbon Steel Using Response Surface Methodology” NPL, hereinafter Lakshminarayanan).
Regarding claim 23, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, as set forth above, discloses wherein said plasma deposition process is a plasma transferred arc technique (Teaching from Zhao, Page 5, Para. 5, “arc plasma transferred to the titanium alloy particles”), said coating layer having a microstructure resulting from rapid melting and solidification of aluminum powder under a plasma arc, characterized by a fusion interface between said surface and said coating layer ensuring metallurgical bonding with minimal mutual dilution of the materials at said fusion interface (Teaching from Zhao, Page 2, Para. 6 from end, “the process can cause the metal surface section area is about the liquid drop section, depth is about 10um of material layer transient melting and spraying metal powder droplets to form metallurgical fusion bonding”, where the features of metallurgical bonding with minimal mutual dilution of materials at the fusion interface is a feature inherently present within plasma transferred arc technique; this is further supported by Lakshminarayanan NPL, Introduction, “In PTA hardfacing, transferred arc melts the powder and, locally, the surface of the treated component so that the entire amount of powder and only a thin film of the component surface under the arc melts. As a result, a solidified metallurgical bond between the deposit and the substrate is obtained with mini mum dilution (less than 10 %)”).
Claims 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 3262197 A1) in view of Vasinko et al. (US 20210105888 A1, hereinafter Vasinko) and Zhao et al. (CN 114737148 A, hereinafter Zhao) in further view of Kang et al. (KR 102300314 B1, hereinafter Kang) and Jin (CN 103469276 B).
Regarding claim 25, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 22, as set forth above.
Modified Peck does not disclose:
wherein a portion of said coating layer is further subjected to sulfuric acid anodizing applied on an external surface of said coating layer so as to form an anodized aluminum oxide sublayer, wherein said anodized aluminum oxide sublayer as a thickness of between 5 μm and 20 μm, preferably between 8 μm and 10 μm, said anodized aluminum oxide sublayer having a thickness less than a total thickness of said coating layer.
However, Kang discloses, in the similar field of coatings to deal with weld spatter (Page 2, Para. 3, “tip of the nozzle collides with the object to remove the spatter attached to the nozzle, and there is a high risk of damage due to impact. In addition, as the weight of the nozzle increases due to the increase in the amount of sputter attachment, there is a problem in that the use is limited during long-term welding.”), where the coating layer can be subjected to sulfuric acid to anodize aluminum to create an aluminum oxide layer (Page 3, Para. 8 from end, “The surface of the nozzle 200 machined from an aluminum alloy pipe with a nozzle is subjected to hard anodizing”, and Page 4, Para. 4, “The group A to group C additives are added in a certain ratio (wt%) to the .sup.basic electrolyte solution sulfuric acid (H 2 SO .sup.4 ) for each step of the current density.”, and Page 4, Para. 6 from end, “a nozzle 300 in which sputter attachment is difficult and the attached sputter is easily removed by a high hardness and high lubricity oxide film”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the aluminum coating layer in modified Peck to be subjected to sulfuric acid in order to create an aluminum oxide coating sublayer as taught by Kang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to obtain a coating that is also resistant to weld spatters and has high hardness, as stated by Kang, Page 4, Para. 6 from end, “nozzle 300 in which sputter attachment is difficult and the attached sputter is easily removed by a high hardness and high lubricity oxide film”.
Further, Jin discloses, in the similar field of aluminum oxides created through sulfuric acid and aluminum alloys (Abstract, “aluminium anode oxide film of acid and alkali corrosion resistance, in the method of the invention, sulphuric acid anode oxidation of aluminium alloy”), where the aluminum oxide layer can have a thickness of less than 10 μm, which is the size of the aluminum layer from the teaching of Zhao (Page 3, Para. 2 from end, “In the invention, after degreasing, etching, un-stimulating aluminium sheet (1050A) is set in the sulphuric acid electrolyte (180 g/L), electrolysis voltage of 15V 30 min to obtain the aluminium anode oxidation oxide film to a thickness of about 8-10 microns.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the aluminum oxide layer in modified Peck to have the thickness as taught by Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the properties of the aluminum oxide layer having benefits of excellent acid resistance, alkali corrosion resistance, and meets industry requirements, as stated by Jin, Abstract, “The invention has the following beneficial effects: the sealing processing method for the aluminium anode oxide film, the film layer has excellent acid resistance, alkali corrosion resistance and meets the automobile industry for aluminium alloy anode oxide film with acid resistance, test requirement of alkali resistance.”.
Claims 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peck (US 3262197 A1) in view of Vasinko et al. (US 20210105888 A1, hereinafter Vasinko) and Zhao et al. (CN 114737148 A, hereinafter Zhao) in further view of Kang et al. (KR 102300314 B1, hereinafter Kang) and Jin (CN 103469276 B) and Miyagi (JP 2007292951 A).
Regarding claim 26, modified Peck teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, as set forth above.
Modified Peck does not disclose:
wherein said anodizing aluminum oxide sublayer has a matt black color and a non-reflective surface finish, configured to reduce optical noise and to increase imaging contrast for a machine vision system associated with the welding assembly.
However, Miyagi discloses, in the similar field of aluminum oxide layers (Page 2, Para. 1, “aluminum is used as the base material of the light shielding blade, an anodized film is formed on the surface”), where the aluminum oxide layer can be black and have a non-reflective surface finish (Page 2, Para. 1, “aluminum is used as the base material of the light shielding blade, an anodized film is formed on the surface, black organic dye is impregnated into the fine pores of the anodized film, and black coating is further applied thereon.”, and Page 3, Para. 4, “during the formation of the anodic oxide film, the anodic oxide film itself is blackened by electrolytic coloring to form a light reflection reducing layer.”, and Page 2, Para. 2, “it is necessary to provide the light-shielding blade with characteristics such as light-shielding property, slidability, non-reflective property, and non-charging property, surface treatment such as painting is usually applied to the surface of the substrate.”, where the black color to the aluminum oxide layer would provide reduction in optical noise due to being black). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the aluminum oxide sublayer in modified Peck to include the black color and non-reflective surface finish as taught by Miyagi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use electrolytic coloring in order to provide an aluminum oxide layer with a specific coloring, where a black coloring can especially be used to allow the layer to have light reflection reduction if desired by a user, as stated by Miyagi, Page 3, Para. 4, “In the present invention, during the formation of the anodic oxide film, the anodic oxide film itself is blackened by electrolytic coloring to form a light reflection reducing layer.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights