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 5, 8, 11, 16, 21, 24, and 27 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.
Claims 5, 8, 11, 16, 21, and 27 recite the coefficient of friction of a coating formed from the claimed cold spray lubricant in an endurance test, but do not disclose the conditions or test method for the endurance test and the measurement of the coefficient of friction.
In claim 24 it is unclear whether the concentration of the molybdenum disulfide powder is relative to the alloy feedstock or the overall cold spray lubricant composition, noting that the “comprising” language allows for the cold spray lubricant composition to comprise components other than the alloy feedstock.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gingerich (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2004/0038832).
In paragraph 2 Gingerich discloses a tungsten disulfide powder. This powder meets the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 17, since it is pure tungsten disulfide powder, as recited in claim 6, and the claimed composition of claims 1 and 17 do not require any additional components. Claims 2 and 18 are additionally met for the case where the copper powder or nickel powder have a concentration of 0% by weight. Since the cold spray lubricant of Gingerich meets the compositional limitations of claims 1 and 6, it will possess the properties recited in claims 4-5, 7-8, and 20-21 noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17-18, and 20-21 are therefore anticipated by Gingerich.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ACS Material (Tungsten Disulfide sales page, retrieved from the internet at < https://web.archive.org/web/20221202034224/https://www.acsmaterial.com/tungsten-disulfide-ws2.html> on 11/6/25).
The Internet Archive URL for ACS Material indicates that the archived version of the website is from 12/2/22, and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). In the “Product Detail” section of the reference, ACS Material discloses a tungsten disulfide (WS2) powder (GLWS2131) having a diameter of 100 nm. This powder meets the limitations of claims 1, 6, 17, and 19, since it is pure tungsten disulfide powder, as recited in claim 6, has a particle size meeting the limitations of claim 19, and the claimed composition of claims 1 and 17 do not require any additional components. Claims 2 and 18 are additionally met for the case where the copper powder or nickel powder have a concentration of 0% by weight. Since the cold spray lubricant of ACS Material meets the compositional limitations of claims 1 and 6, it will possess the properties recited in claims 4-5, 7-8, and 20-21 noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17-18, and 20-21 are therefore anticipated by ACS Material
Claims 1, 4-5, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (CN 109504963 A).
An English-language machine translation of Zhou, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
In paragraph 9 Zhou discloses an anti-radiation solid lubricating coating comprising 20 to 50% by weight of copper powder, as recited in claim 1 and also meeting the limitations of the metal powder of claim 22, and 50 to 80% by weight of nickel-coated tungsten disulfide powder, meeting the limitations of the tungsten disulfide powder of claim 1 and the solid lubricant of claim 22. In paragraph 11 (see also paragraph 8 of the original reference) Zhou discloses that the tungsten disulfide is present in an amount of 20 to 80% of the nickel-coated tungsten disulfide powder, leading to an amount of 10 to 64% by weight of tungsten disulfide in the composition, meeting the limitations of the tungsten disulfide of claim 1 even when the nickel coating is not considered part of the tungsten disulfide powder. In paragraph 13 Zhou discloses that the coating is applied by cold spraying, indicating that the composition is useful as a cold spray lubricant. Claims 1 and 22 are therefore anticipated by Zhou. Since the cold spray lubricant of Zhou meets the compositional limitations of claim 1, it will possess the properties recited in claims 4-5, noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 1, 4-5, and 22 are therefore anticipated by Zhou.
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ronzio (U.S. Pat. No. 3,991,156).
In the abstract, Ronzio discloses a process for purifying molybdenum disulfide concentrates that results in a purified molybdenum disulfide powder product. Ronzio teaches in column 1 lines 7-8 that the molybdenum disulfide has excellent lubricating properties, and therefore meets the limitations of the pure molybdenum disulfide powder lubricant of claim 9, noting that since the molybdenum disulfide powder of Ronzio meets the compositional limitations of claim 9, it will be capable of use as a cold spray lubricant. The molybdenum disulfide powder of Ronzio similarly meets the limitations of claims 12-13 for the case where the concentration of nickel powder is 0%. Since the cold spray lubricant of Ronzio meets the compositional limitations of claims 9 and 12, it will possess the properties recited in claims 10-11 and 15-16, noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are therefore anticipated by Ronzio.
Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawasato (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2006/0030496).
In paragraph 12 Kawasato discloses a powder spray lubricant comprising molybdenum disulfide powder and a high-pressure gas. While Kawasato discloses the concentrations including the high-temperature gas, the resulting lubricant coating consists of only the molybdenum disulfide, and it is also noted that the claimed cold spray lubricant compositions are recited independent of the gas. The molybdenum disulfide powder of Kawasato therefore meets the limitations of the pure molybdenum disulfide composition of claim 9, as well as claims 12-13 for the case where the concentration of nickel powder is 0%. Since the cold spray lubricant of Kawasato meets the compositional limitations of claims 9 and 12, it will possess the properties recited in claims 10-11 and 15-16, noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 9-13 and 15-16 are therefore anticipated by Kawasato.
Claims 22-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huo (CN 112705441 A).
An English-language machine translation of Huo, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
In paragraph n0007, Huo discloses a composite powder of metal powder and molybdenum disulfide, where the metal powder can be copper powder and is present in an amount of 50 to 70% by weight, and the molybdenum disulfide is present in an amount of 30 to 50% by weight. Molybdenum disulfide is a solid lubricant, as recited in claim 22. In paragraph n0008 Huo discloses that this composite powder is applied by cold spraying, indicating that the composite powder is useful as a cold spray lubricant. Claims 22-23 are therefore anticipated by Huo. Since the cold spray lubricant of Huo meets the compositional limitations of claim 23, it will possess the properties recited in claims 26-27, noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 23 and 26-27 are therefore anticipated by Huo.
Claim 22-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Epshteyn (U.S. Pat. No. 9,790,448).
In column 1 lines 15-18 Epshteyn discloses composite powders comprising copper and molybdenum disulfide. In column 14 lines 32-43 Epshteyn discloses a dry granulation process for producing these powders, comprising the dry mixing or blending of a copper-containing powder and a molybdenum disulfide powder. In column 7 lines 5-6 and 36-38, Epshteyn discloses that the copper-containing powder can be copper metal powder, meeting the limitations of the metal powder of claim 22 and the copper powder of claim 23. Epshteyn discloses that the powders can be added in the various proportions described elsewhere in the reference, and in Table II (column 15) discloses compositions comprising molybdenum disulfide powder in amounts of 50%, 75%, and 95% by weight, within the range recited in claim 23. The molybdenum disulfide powder is a solid lubricant, as recited in claim 22. The dry mixture of copper-containing powder and molybdenum disulfide powder of Epshteyn, prior to compacting, therefore meets the limitations of claim 23, noting that since the composition meets the compositional limitations of the claim, it will be capable of use as a cold spray lubricant. Since the composition of Epshteyn meets the compositional limitations of claim 23, it will possess the properties recited in claims 26-27, noting that these claims are drawn to the cold spray lubricant composition and not a method or a coating. Claims 23 and 26-27 are therefore anticipated by Epshteyn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingerich.
The discussion of Gingerich in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Gingerich discloses a tungsten disulfide powder, but does not disclose a powder having the specific particle size recited in claim 3. In paragraph 5 Gingerich discloses that the tungsten disulfide particles in the powder have an average particle diameter of about 10 to about 25 µm, encompassing the range recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious by Gingerich.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou.
The discussion of Zhou in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Zhou discloses a composition meeting the limitations , but does not disclose a powder having the specific particle size recited in claim 3. In paragraph 11 Zhou discloses that the nickel coated tungsten disulfide particles in the powder have an average particle diameter of 5 to 30 µm, encompassing the range recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious by Zhou.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasato.
The discussion of Kawasato in paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference. Kawasato discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 12, but does not disclose a molybdenum powder having the specific particle size recited in claim 14. In paragraph 22 Kawasato discloses that the molybdenum disulfide particles in the composite powder have an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 200 µm, encompassing the value recited in claim 14. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 14 is therefore rendered obvious by Kawasato.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo.
The discussion of Huo in paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference. Zhou discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 23, but does not disclose a powder having the specific particle size recited in claim 26. In paragraph n0010 Huo discloses that the molybdenum disulfide particles in the composite powder have an average particle diameter of 5 to 30 µm, encompassing the value recited in claim 25. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 25 is therefore rendered obvious by Huo.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epshteyn.
The discussion of Epshteyn in paragraph 12 above is incorporated by reference. Epshteyn discloses a composition meeting the limitations of claim 23, but does not disclose compositions comprising copper powder and molybdenum disulfide in the particle sizes of claims 24-25.
In column 7 lines 23-26 Epshteyn discloses that the copper-containing powder can have a particle size of about 0.5 µm to about 1 µm, overlapping the range recited in claim 24. In column 7 lines 50-52 Epshteyn discloses that the molybdenum disulfide powder can have a particle size of about 0.1 µm to about 30 µm, encompassing the range recited in claim 25. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claims 24-25 are therefore rendered obvious by Epshteyn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shaw (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2012/0272869) discloses spherical molybdenum disulfide particles suitable for cold spraying deposition. It is cumulative to the Ronzio and Kawasato references cited in the above rejections.
Guo (CN 110079800 A) discloses combining nickel powder and molybdenum disulfide powder, where the molybdenum disulfide powder is present in an amount of 20 to 50% by weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771