Development of a Functional Trivalent Chromium Electroplating Process: An Innovation Is Not Equivalent to an Invention

Abstract

Faraday Technology Inc. is a research, development and engineering firm developing electrochemical innovations based has pulse/pulse reverse electrolytic principles [1]. One of Faraday’s current activities is directed towards the development of an innovative functional chrome plating process based on a trivalent chromium electrolyte to replace hexavalent chromium plating. Hexavalent chromium plating has been used for many decades to provide hard, durable coatings with excellent wear and corrosion resistance properties. However, hexavalent chromium has come under increasing scrutiny due to the toxic nature of the bath, effects on the environment, and workers’ health. Faraday has demonstrated that the chrome coatings prepared using the FARADAYIC(R) Process have equivalent functional properties to the coatings produced with a hexavalent chromium bath. The data demonstrates equivalent or superior: 1) plating rate, 2) Knoop hardness, 3) current efficiency, 4) hydrogen embrittlement behavior, 5) adhesion, 6) corrosion resistance, 7) porosity, 8) thickness, 9) Taber Abrasion, Ball on Flat Reciprocating and Dithering wear resistance, and with no hexavalent chromium formation in the bath. A key component of Faraday’s commercialization model is to license the intellectual property (patents and know-how) associated with its electrochemical innovations. Subject to U.S. statute, inventions may be afforded exclusive right to exclude others from “…making, using offering for sell or selling the invention…” for a limited period of time in the form of a patent.[2] Per U.S. statute, patent “…shall have the attributes of property…” and consequently, patents are often referred to as intellectual property.[3] The claims of a patent may analogously be considered as the “metes and bounds” or boundary of said property. As such, during the examination (i.e. prosecution) of a patent application, prior art patents upon which the pending patent application would “trespass” are identified in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office actions. In this case, the pending patent application would be rejected due to lack of novelty.[4] In addition, pending patent applications may be rejected based on “obviousness” in light of prior art patents and published literature. From a patentability perspective, legal obviousness is distinct from legal obviousness.[5] Using the functional trivalent chromium plating innovation as an example, early attempts to patent this invention and the USPTO rejections based on obviousness will be presented. These obviousness rejections illustrate the differences between legal obviousness and technical obviousness. By understanding these differences in legal obviousness, the electrochemist/inventor is better equipped to work with patent counsel in addressing obviousness rejections from the USPTO.[6] Acknowledgements: This study is supported by the US EPA SBIR Program (EP-D-11-044), the US Army (W911NF-11-2-0014) and private sources. The financial support of Faraday Technology, Inc. corporate R&D is also gratefully acknowledged. [1] E. J. Taylor “Adventures in Pulse/Pulse Reverse Electrolytic Processes: Explorations and Applications in Surface Finishing” J. Applied Surface Finsihing, 3(4), 178-189 (2008). [2] 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(2) Contents and term of patent; provisional rights. [3] 35 U.S.C. §261 Ownership; assignment. [4] 35 U.S.C. §102 Conditions for patentability; novelty. [5] 35 U.S.C. §103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. [6] Graham v. John Deere Co.,383 U.S. 1. 148 USPQ 459 (1966).