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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges that the amended drawings corrects the issues noted by the previous office action of (11 – 12 – 2025). All of the previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (3 – 6 – 2024) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Applicant submits that the combination fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness because there is insufficient motivation to combine Gopalan with Tang, and the proposed modification is self-defeating. In particular, the sole motivation given for modifying Tang with Gopalan is "implementing an optimized surface roughness provided by a wave-form surface profile, with peaks and valleys, such as a sinusoidal surface profile, effectively increases and optimizes the surface area of the surfaces to maximize the service life of the component". That benefit is expressly tied in Gopalan to semiconductor processing chamber components and their plasma- facing surfaces that must resist erosion from process gases and plasma. The problems addressed by Gopalan are entirely unrelated to Tang or to the present claims, and the examiner has not articulated any reason that would prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt Gopalan's semiconductor-specific solution into Tang's barrier coatings.
Gopalan teaches the macro-level features as the final, optimized surface profile whose increased surface area maximizes service life in semiconductor processing equipment. The rejection then applies a layer of slurry to that macro-rough substrate and, using Nakano, presses a mold against the surface of the slurry layer to reduce its surface roughness. The final barrier layer that results is therefore smoothed and does not retain the macro-level roughness or increased surface area that Gopalan exists to provide.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Tang / Tang as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
& b.) As noted in the action Tang teaches on ([0032]) that the substrate 24 can be a ceramic-based substrate, such as a silicon-containing ceramic material. One example is silicon carbide. As such, one type of substrate implemented in Tang comprises silicon carbide. With Gopalan going on to state on ([0022]) that in the process kit include rings made of silicon, silicon dioxide or quartz, silicon carbide. ([0026]) adding that a macro-level profile 302 is formed in the base surface 308 to create an engineered surface 390. That is, the engineered surface 390, depicted as the profile 302, is comprised of a repeatable macro-level patterned engineered surface features 360. As noted by applicant ([0015]) states that the benefit for this engineered surface profile, for example a wave-form surface profile, such as a sinusoidal surface profile, which effectively increases the surface area of the plasma facing surfaces to maximize the service life of the chamber component. While the applicant may see the benefit as the service life portion, the other benefit provided is that these features increase the surface area of the surface being “engineered”. Namely, by adding and tailoring the surface with these macro features it impacts and increases the overall surface area provided by the surface being “engineered”. Consequently, the addition of these features is seen as a result effective variable. Accordingly, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Ultimately, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and as detailed above, by adding and tailoring the surface with these macro features it impacts and increases the overall surface area provided by the surface being “engineered”. Furthermore, applicant’s claims requires that the applying a layer of the slurry on an outer surface of a substrate that has a macro-level substrate surface roughness, the layer of the slurry having a surface roughness that follows the macro-level substrate surface roughness; followed by, reducing the surface roughness of the layer of the slurry by applying force to the layer of the slurry by pressing a mold against the surface of the slurry to form a smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate, the applying of the force to the layer of the slurry also reducing thickness of the layer of the slurry; (emphasis added). As such, the pressing is claimed to reduce the surface roughness of the layer of slurry, forming a smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate, there is no verbiage indicating that the slurry application is limited to forming an entire, single, final surface that is perfectly flat / smooth or planar. Instead, it understood to create a smooth uniform, sealed surface texture that generally follows the contour of the substrate. Namely, the statement is understood to describes a process of conformal coating followed by planarization (smoothing), rather than completely eliminating the underlying rough topography of the substrate. In particular, layer of the slurry having a surface roughness that follows the macro-level substrate surface roughness is understood to indicate that the slurry initially acts as a coating that adheres to the existing peaks and valleys of the substrate. This is followed by reducing the surface roughness of the layer... by pressing a mold. As such, the force applied by the mold is designed to flatten the top surface of the slurry to make it smooth, rather than removing all the slurry from the high points of the substrate. Followed by form(ing) a smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate, the final structure consists of a uniform-looking top surface while the interface between the slurry and the substrate remains irregular. In summary, the technique is understood to create a smooth external surface, while the underlying substrate retains its macro-level topography, which is simply covered by the slurry layer.
As noted above, this argument assumes the slurry completely covers and fills the macro-channels of Gopalan. However, the slurry serves to create a smooth coating over the surface, not to remove the surface features themselves. Nakano's molding process simply pushes the slurry into the voids and smooths the peaks, creating a "smooth coating" but still a structured surface, which is common in semiconductor wafer planarization techniques. Furthermore, the slurry is simply a carrier for surface treatment particles. Pressing a mold against it in a structured way (Nakano) allows for the smoothing of the peaks of the Gopalan topography, without filling in the macroscopic valleys or eliminating the overall textured structure. With Nakano on ([0032]) noting that profile 302 may comprises several types of possibly curved profiles including trapezoidal profile 420 or a semi-circular profile 430, or hemi-spherical surfaces, may also be suitable, in which the trapezoidal profile 420 composed of sharp, pointed peaks and troughs, forming a zigzag pattern. The abrupt changes in direction at each peak and trough make it a non-smooth, angular line which is far less smooth than the a semi-circular profile 430 composed of continuous, gentle curves (arcs). The gradual change in direction along the entire line gives it a smooth appearance, as such providing for different smoothness within the possibly curved profiles utilized. As such, providing for a “smoother” surface, does not teach away from Gopalan, nor is it found to negate nor nullify the combination of Nakano and Gopalan.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Tang / Tang as modified.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5, 8, 14, 16 & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20160332922 A1, hereinafter Tang) in view of Gopalan et al. (US 20160155657 A1, hereinafter Gopalan) and in further view of Nakano et al. (US 5489408 A hereinafter Nakano) Regarding claim(s) 1 & 14,
A method of fabricating a barrier layer on a substrate, comprising:
mixing gettering particles,
diffusive particles, and
matrix material in a carrier fluid to form a slurry;
applying a layer of the slurry on an outer surface of a substrate that has a macro-level substrate surface roughness,
the layer of the slurry having a surface roughness that follows the macro-level substrate surface roughness;
followed by, reducing the surface roughness of the layer of the slurry by applying force to the layer of the slurry by pressing a mold against the surface of the slurry to form a smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate,
the applying of the force to the layer of the slurry also reducing thickness of the layer of the slurry; and
sintering the smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate to form a barrier layer on the outer surface of the substrate.
Wherein the gettering particles are silicon oxycarbide particles,
the diffusive particles are barium-magnesium alumina-silicate particles, and
the matrix material is colloidal silica.
Tang teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches an article includes a ceramic-based substrate and a barrier layer on the ceramic-based substrate. The barrier layer a dispersion of silicon oxycarbide particles in the matrix. ([0029]) teaches the composite material includes a dispersion of silicon oxycarbide particles (SiOC) 28 in the matrix 26.
(Abstract) teaches that the barrier layer also includes a matrix of barium-magnesium alumino-silicate or SiO2. ([0029]) teaches that and a dispersion of barium-magnesium alumino-silicate particles 30 (“BMAS particles 30”)
([0036]) teaches that appropriate slurries can be prepared by mixing components, such as silicon oxycarbide, barium-magnesium alumino-silicate, and powder of silicon dioxide or colloidal silica (Ludox) in a carrier fluid, such as water. ([0029]) teaches that the composite material 22 includes a matrix of silicon dioxide (SiO2).
& e.) ([0036]) teaches that the slurries can be mixed by agitation or ball milling and the resulting slurry can be painted, dipped, sprayed or otherwise deposited onto the underlying substrate 24.
([0033]) teaches the article 120 additionally includes a ceramic-based topcoat 132 interfaced with the barrier layer. As an example, the ceramic-based topcoat 132 can include one or more layers of an oxide-based material. ([0036]) teaches that slurry can be painted, dipped, sprayed or otherwise deposited onto. ([0037]) teaches that the coating process can be repeated until all layers are coated. Highlighting, that the implementation of a second layer on top of the barrier layer, is understood to be an implementing of a force onto the barrier layer. ([0039]) teaches an outer layer was applied in the same fashion as the inner layer with the exception that the outer layer was applied with two passes. In between the two passes, a silica sealing layer was coated to reduce the porosity in the outer layer. Where the application of a sealing layer is understood to acts as a type of smoothing technique.
([0036]) teaches that the slurry can then be dried at room temperature or at an elevated temperature to remove the carrier fluid. In one example, the slurry is dried and cured at about 200° C. for at least 15 minutes to ensure proper cross-linking of the coating. ([0036]) adding that the green coating can then be sintered at an elevated temperature in air for a selected amount of time. In one example, the sintering includes heating at 1500 °C or greater in an air environment for at least 1 hour.
Regarding Claim 1, Tang is silent on changing a macro-level surface roughness of the surface of the substate layer. In analogous art for a silicon carbide material ([0025]), that is fabricated with a coating, Gopalan suggests details regarding a macro-level surface roughness of the surface of the substate layer fabricated with a coating ([0025]), and in this regard, Gopalan teaches the following:
([0025]) that the ring assembly 104 can comprise silicon carbide. Additionally, in an embodiment, the ring assembly comprise first dielectric material, and all or a portion of the upper surface 206 can be coated with a second dielectric material. For example, the ring assembly 104 can generally comprise quartz, and at least the seating area 208, and optionally the plasma facing surface 136, can be coated with silicon carbide.([0036]) teaching that the profile 302 defined by the features 360 may have peaks 364 and valleys 362, wherein the distance between the peaks 364 and valleys 362 may define a height of the features 360. ([0027]) teaches that the macro-level features 360 may be formed from a material covering or coating the body 210.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, of Tang. By modifying the surface roughness to have macro-level features, as taught by Gopalan. Highlighting, implementing an optimized surface roughness provided by a wave-form surface profile, with peaks and valleys, such as a sinusoidal surface profile, effectively increases and optimizes the surface area of the surfaces to maximize the service life of the component, ([0015]). Furthermore, implementing the macro-level features is understood to impact and tailor the surface by increasing the amount of surface area provided by the surface being “engineered”. Consequently, the addition of these features is seen as a result effective variable. Accordingly, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 1, Tang as modified by Gopalan is silent on changing a surface roughness of the surface of the layer of the slurry by applying a force to the layer of the slurry with a mold. In analogous art for a composite material that is fabricated via the imposition of slurry that comprises ceramic material and silicon resin that is deposited onto a ceramic substrate layer, Nakano suggests details regarding various means for applying and adjusting the slurry deposited on a ceramic substrate with a mold, and in this regard, Nakano teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches setting a slurry in contact with a surface of the preform opposite to the one surface exerting pressure on the slurry, thereby obtaining a composite having an impregnated preform, the impregnation being affected in a single step. Highlighting, that the apparatus utilized in the exertion of pressure on the slurry, and holding the substrate is understood to comprise a mold utilized to simultaneously deposit a layer on a ceramic substrate, and adjusted the layer deposited via pressure applied.
(Abstract) teaches exerting pressure on the slurry subjecting the preform to vacuum aspiration through the filter plate. (Col. 3, lines 42 – 45).The slurry, by exertion of high pressure thereon, is caused to permeate the fibrous preform which is obtained by three-dimensionally interweaving carbon fibers. (Col. 25 – 35) teaches that an spiration chamber 12 formed therein by depression and a cylinder 13 set in place on the foundation 11 and provided with a cylinder hole 14 communicating with the aspiration chamber 12. The foundation 11 is so adapted that the aspiration chamber 12 communicates with a vacuum pump through an aspiration path 15. As such, as pressure is placed on the slurry, it causes the slurry to be absorbed and permeate the fibrous preform, thus reducing the amount of slurry by the amount absorbed and permeated into the fibrous preform. Where any remaining slurry that is not and permeated into the fibrous preform is found to be transferred to the aspiration chamber 12. Result in all of the slurry being removed from the molding apparatus, thus providing for an application of a force to the layer of the slurry and also reducing thickness of the layer of the slurry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, with Tang making mention and instructs on adjusting the layer of slurry applied to the substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan. By further modifying the apparatus such that it provides for a simultaneous slurry application and slurry adjusting techniques on the slurry utilized on a ceramic substrate, as taught by Nakano. Highlighting, implementation of apparatus that allows for the simultaneous slurry application and slurry adjusting techniques on the slurry utilized on a ceramic substrate provides a pressing operation with the aspirating operation curtails the time required for the removal of the solvent from the slurry, (Col. 6, lines 7-9).Highlighting, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Furthermore, the case law for no difference between coating and impregnating may be recited. Where, the art does not recognize any distinction between coating and impregnating, See In re Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221.Additionally, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising
partially curing the layer of the slurry prior to pressing the mold against the surface of the slurry.
Tang teaches the following:
([0036]) teaches that the slurry can then be dried at room temperature or at an elevated temperature to remove the carrier fluid. In one example, the slurry is dried and cured at about 200° C. for at least 15 minutes to ensure proper cross-linking of the coating. Highlighting, while curing is understood to transpire after deposition of the coating, the case law for the rearrangement of method steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the reducing of the surface roughness includes placing the substrate with the layer of the slurry into a first tool of the mold after the applying of the layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate and applying the force to the layer of the slurry by pressing a second tool of the mold onto the layer of the slurry.
Regarding Claims 5, Tang as modified by Gopalan is silent on various details including particular types of adjusting that may transpire to the slurry after deposition to the substrate. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Nakano suggests details regarding various means for applying and adjusting the slurry deposited on a ceramic substrate, and in this regard, Nakano teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches setting a slurry in contact with a surface of the preform opposite to the one surface exerting pressure on the slurry and, at the same time, subjecting the preform to vacuum aspiration through the filter plate, thereby obtaining a composite having an impregnated preform, the impregnation being affected in a single step. Highlighting, that the apparatus utilized in the exertion of pressure on the slurry, and holding the substrate is understood to comprise a mold utilized to simultaneously deposit a layer on a ceramic substrate, and adjusted the layer deposited via pressure applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry
to a substrate, with Tang making mention and instructs on adjusting the layer of slurry applied
to the substrate of Tang. By modifying the slurry surface roughness via force application with
the mold, as taught by Nakano. Highlighting, application of force via the mold provides a means
for coating the preform, the coating being affected in a single step, (Abstract). Additionally, the
use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way
and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A
person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical
grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007). Additionally, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. See, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959) and In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising partially curing the layer of the slurry prior to the reducing of the surface roughness
Tang teaches the following:
([0036]) teaches that the slurry can then be dried at room temperature or at an elevated temperature to remove the carrier fluid. In one example, the slurry is dried and cured at about 200° C. for at least 15 minutes to ensure proper cross-linking of the coating. Highlighting, while curing is understood to transpire after deposition of the coating, the case law for the rearrangement of method steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer after the sintering.
Regarding Claim 15, Tang is silent on changing a macro-level surface roughness of the surface of the substate layer. In analogous art for a silicon carbide material ([0025]), that is fabricated with a coating, Gopalan suggests details regarding a macro-level surface roughness of the surface of the substate layer fabricated with a coating ([0025]), and in this regard, Gopalan teaches the following:
([0028]) The macro-level features 360 of the profile 302 on the upper surface 202 may have a micro-level surface roughness disposed thereon. The upper surface 202, such as when it is machined or formed through other means, may have surface projections 304 on a micro-level scale defining the surface roughness of the upper surface 202 defining the profile 302.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, of Tang. By modifying the surface roughness to have macro-level features , as taught by Gopalan. Highlighting, implementing an optimized surface roughness provided by a wave-form surface profile, with peaks and valleys, such as a sinusoidal surface profile, effectively increases and optimizes the surface area of the surfaces to maximize the service life of the component, ([0015]).
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising applying a ceramic-based topcoat to the barrier layer after creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer
Tang teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches that (FIG. 3) shows another example article 120 that includes the composite material 22 as a barrier layer arranged on the substrate 24. In this example, the article 120 additionally includes a ceramic-based topcoat 132 interfaced with the barrier layer.
Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the applying of the force to the layer of the slurry includes situating in a male or female tool of the mold the substrate with the layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate,
following by pressing the other of the female or male tool onto the slurry
Regarding Claim 25, Tang as modified is silent on changing a surface roughness of the surface of the layer of the slurry by applying a force to the layer of the slurry with a mold. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Nakano suggests details regarding various means for applying and adjusting the slurry deposited on a ceramic substrate with a mold, and in this regard, Nakano teaches the following:
& b.) (Abstract) teaches exerting pressure on the slurry subjecting the preform to vacuum aspiration through the filter plate. (Col. 3, lines 42 – 45).The slurry, by exertion of high pressure thereon, is caused to permeate the fibrous preform which is obtained by three-dimensionally interweaving carbon fibers. (Col. 25 – 35) teaches that an spiration chamber 12 formed therein by depression and a cylinder 13 set in place on the foundation 11 and provided with a cylinder hole 14 communicating with the aspiration chamber 12. The foundation 11 is so adapted that the aspiration chamber 12 communicates with a vacuum pump through an aspiration path 15. As such, as pressure is placed on the slurry, it causes the slurry to be absorbed and permeate the fibrous preform, thus reducing the amount of slurry by the amount absorbed and permeated into the fibrous preform. Where any remaining slurry that is not and permeated into the fibrous preform is found to be transferred to the aspiration chamber 12. Result in all of the slurry being removed from the molding apparatus, thus providing for an application of a force to the layer of the slurry and also reducing thickness of the layer of the slurry. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 1) the mold is first placed into a female mold, followed by pressure being applied by a male mold component.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
B.) Claim(s) 7 & 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tang in view of Gopalan in view of Nakano and in further view of Nakada et al. (US 20150079371 A1, hereinafter Nakada) as evidenced by K. McNamara et al. (Comprehensive Materials Finishing, 2017, hereinafter McNamara).
Regarding claim(s) 7 & 9 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the layer of the slurry is heated during the reducing of the surface roughness.
Wherein the sintering is performed in the mold.
Regarding claim(s) 7 & 9, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano are silent on slurry is heated during the adjusting. In analogous art for a ceramic matrix composite component coated with environmental barrier coatings includes a ceramic matrix composite that may be infiltrated with a slurry containing ceramic powders, Nakada suggest details regarding implementing a step of heating the slurry while it is adjusting, and in this regard Nakada teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0068]) teaches that for forming a ceramic matrix and then combining the reinforcing fibers and raw material powders by reaction sintering using a hot press or a hot isostatic press (HIP). Where hot isostatic pressing is understood to result in a sintered article after the application of pressure and heat and the surfaces utilized to contain and/or press the article are understood to acts as the mold. Highlighting evidenced from McNamara (Surface Coating Processes, 3.21.3.2.2 HIP, ¶1) teaches that for isostatic compaction the powders must be encapsulated in an evacuated gas-tight welded can. The can transfers the pressure to the powders. This can or mold can be mild steel, stainless, a metal, or a glass capsule. As depicted the in the photo of McNamara and provided here, the mold is utilized to contain the material prior to utilizing HIP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, with Tang making mention and instructs on adjusting the layer of slurry applied to the substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan. By further modifying the process to utilize a hot press or a hot isostatic press (HIP) as a means for sintering, as taught by Nakada. Highlighting, implementation of utilizing a hot press or a hot isostatic press (HIP) as a means for sintering provides a means for simultaneously sintering the object while applying pressure to compact (increase density of) the article, ([0068]). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). C.) Claim(s) 11 – 12 & 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Gopalan in view of Nakano and in further view of Johnson et al. (EP 1088908 A2, hereinafter Johnson)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the reducing of the surface roughness includes reducing the surface roughness by at least 50%.
Regarding Claim 11, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano is silent on smoothing reduces the macro-level surface roughness of the layer of the slurry by at least 50%. In analogous art for a method for smoothing the surface of a ceramic-based protective coating which exhibits roughness is disclosed. The method includes the steps of applying a ceramic-based slurry or gel coating to the protective coating surface, (Abstract), Johnson suggests details regarding smoothing the surface of the layer of the slurry, and in this regard, Johnson teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that that the as-sprayed roughness is often greater than about 8 microns, and sometimes, greater than about 12 microns. With ([0014]) teaching that regardless of the particular application, the end result of the present process is a protective coating which usually has surface roughness (Ra) of less than about 7 microns, and preferably, less than about 3 microns. As such, going from a surface roughness (Ra) value of 12 microns to a roughness of 3 microns is understood to be a smoothing of the slurry layer by at least 50%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By further modifying the process to include reduction in the macro-level surface roughness of the layer of the slurry by at least 50%, as taught by Johnson. Highlighting, implementing a smoothing of the slurry layer by at least 50%, provides for an optimized surface roughness of the coating, ([0022]). Furthermore, the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law, where "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising forming a texture in the surface of the layer of the slurry.
Tang teaches the following:
([0033]) teaches that (FIG. 3) shows another example article 120 that includes the composite material 22 as a barrier layer arranged on the substrate 24. In this example, the article 120 additionally includes a ceramic-based topcoat 132 interfaced with the barrier layer. ([0037]) teaches that various slurry coating methods such as painting, dipping and spraying can be used to coat ceramic matrix composite (CMC) substrates. Highlighting, evidence from Johnson ([0012]) teaches that as described previously, plasma-spraying of TBC's - especially air plasma spraying, results in a relatively rough surface texture. The as-sprayed roughness is often greater than about 8 microns, and sometimes, greater than about 12 microns. As such, Tang’s implementation of spraying the slurry is understood to impart a texture in the surface of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate, of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By utilizing the fact that spraying a layer of slurry coating provides a means for forming texture, as evidenced by Johnson, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known attribute / property of spraying a layer of slurry, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested and evidenced by Johnson. Additionally, the case for the rearrangement of method steps may be recited, where in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer after the sintering.
Regarding Claim 15, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano is silent on adjusting includes smoothing the surface of the layer of the slurry. In analogous art as applied above, Johnson suggests details regarding smoothing the surface of the layer of the slurry, and in this regard, Johnson teaches the following:
([0013]) teaches that the slurry/gel-derived coating is further smoothened after being cured, by fine-grinding or polishing. Polishing or fine-grinding could also be carried out after the application of one or more of the topcoats, and/or after the deposition of the optional finish-coat (i.e., before and/or after curing). As such, it is understood that polishing allows for tailoring the surface roughness of the article fabricated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By further modifying the process by implementing a polishing or fine-grinding as a means to smooth the slurry/gel-derived coating, as taught by Johnson. Highlighting, implementation of polishing or fine-grinding as a means to smooth the slurry/gel-derived coating allows for achieving a better surface smoothness (Ra) value, ([0014]). Furthermore, the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law, where "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
D.) Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Gopalan in view of Nakano and in further view of Oboodi et al. (US 20180347049 A1, hereinafter Oboodi)
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer after the sintering.
Regarding Claim 15, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano is silent on creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer after the sintering. In analogous art for a method regarding forming sintered-bonded high temperature coatings over ceramic components, where the coating precursor material may be applied as a slurry, where wet state deposition implements a liquid content including a binder, Oboodi suggests details regarding creating micro-level surface roughness on the barrier layer after the sintering, and in this regard, Oboodi teaches the following:
([0058]) teaches that a first series of deposition steps 92 is performed, followed by a first heat treatment step 98, followed by a second series of deposition steps 94, followed by a second heat treatment step 100, followed by a third series of deposition steps 96, and lastly followed by a third and final heat treatment step 102. The number of coating deposition steps and sintering steps will vary amongst embodiments based, at least in part, on the desired final thickness of sintered coating body 50 (and noting that some thickness may be removed from the sintered coating body via a subsequently-performed thinning step, such as grinding or polishing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By further modifying the process by adding a thinning step after sintering, as taught by Oboodi. Highlighting, implementation of a thinning step after sintering allows for tailoring the thickness of the sintered coating body fabricated, ([0058]). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
E.) Claim(s) 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Gopalan in view of Nakano and in further view of Jarmon et al. (US 20110219775 A1, hereinafter Jarmon)
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the substrate is a ceramic matrix composite.
Regarding Claim 21, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano is silent on implementing a substrate that is a ceramic matrix composite. In analogous art for a method regarding forming sintered-bonded high temperature coatings over ceramic components, where the coating precursor material may be applied as a slurry, where wet state deposition implements a liquid content including a binder, Jarmon suggests details regarding implementing a substrate that is a ceramic matrix composite, and in this regard, Jarmon teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that the hardenable material includes at least one typical constituent of an environmental barrier coating (EBC). This includes at least one of silicon, refractory metal silicides. ([0020]) teaches that the silicon layer 38 is applied in a non-solid form to a surface 30 of the CMC 22 and becomes solid upon cooling. The silicon layer 38 forms a bond to the surface 30 with a tensile strength substantially the same as the CMC 22. That is, the bond between the silicon layer 38 and the CMC 22 withstands tensile forces that are substantially the same as if the CMC 22 material were tested by itself. As such, the substrate that the barrier coating is applied to is a ceramic matrix composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By further modifying the process to include a substrate that is a ceramic matrix composite as taught by Jarmon. Highlighting, implementing a substrate that is a ceramic matrix composite provides for tailoring and improving the durability properties of the ceramic matrix composite as compared to a purely ceramic component, ([0003]). F.) Claim(s) 23 – 24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Gopalan in view of Nakano and in further view of Shim et al. (US 20160214907 A1, hereinafter Shim)Regarding claim(s) 23 & 24 as applied to claim 1 and 23 respectively,
Wherein the mold is pliable.
Wherein the mold is silicone.
Regarding Claim(s) 23 – 24, Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano is silent on the mold being pliable and the mold being silicone. In analogous art for techniques for forming a surface layer of an article including a CMC using a cast, (Abstract), Shim teaches the mold being pliable and the mold being silicone and in this regard, Shim teaches the following
& 25a.) ([0031]) teaches that a porous preform including reinforcement material may be placed in a mold in which the cast is also disposed. The porous preform may be infiltrated with a slurry that includes matrix material precursor. The slurry may substantially fill the geometry defined by the cast. ([0062]) teaches that the technique of (Fig. 4) includes impregnating a porous preform 54 with a slurry to form an impregnated porous preform including a surface layer 58 including a plurality of three-dimensional surface features (42). As shown in FIG. 5, in some examples, porous preform 54 and cast 56 may be placed in a mold 52, which defines a cavity for receiving porous preform 54 and cast 56. ([0063]) teaches that mold 52 may be formed of a refractory material, such as for example, graphite, silica, alumina, or the like. The material from which mold 52 is formed may be selected to allow release of the component after completion of the infiltration step, and to be sufficiently non-reactive with the materials used in forming the composite article. ([0070]) teaches that the slurry, porous preform 54 may be impregnated with the slurry (42). The slurry may substantially fill the pores of porous preform 54 and the space 58 between porous preform 54 and cast 56. With ([0067]) teaching that that the cast 56 may be flexible. For example, cast 56 may include a silicone, a polyurethane, or the like. With ([0148]) teaches that (Fig. 15) is a photograph of an example green body preform disposed in a silicone rubber mold. As such, Shim provides for both a mold and a cast fabricated from a silicone rubber, with both the mold and cast utilized in the porous preform infiltration process used to define a surface layer 58 including a plurality of three-dimensional surface features 42. Additionally, ([0032]) teaches the cast may be used to form the surface layer via a stamping technique. For example, the green body preform including the reinforcement material and dried slurry that includes matrix material precursor may be formed as described above, but in a mold that does not include the cast. ([0064]) adds that surface layer 64 may be formed using a three-dimensional cast and a stamping technique, as shown in (Figs. 7 & 8). With ([0080]) teaches that the technique of (Fig. 7) optionally includes impregnating a porous preform with a first slurry to form an impregnated porous preform 92 (82). During this impregnation process, the porous preform may be placed in a mold that does not also enclose cast 98. ([0084]) notes that in some examples, the second slurry may include the same composition as the first slurry. Recalling, ([0067]) teaching that that the cast 56 may be flexible. For example, cast 56 may include a silicone, a polyurethane, or the like. As such, Shim also provides for implementing a slurry infiltration step that comprises applying a layer of the slurry on an outer surface of a substrate followed by pressing a mold / cast against the surface of the slurry to form a smoothed layer of the slurry on the outer surface of the substrate. In either case, due to the mold and/or cast being fabricated from silicone it is understood to provide for a mold that is pliable. Moreover, the case law for substantially identical process and structure. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Finally, due to the claims being directed to structure limitations of and the claims being directed towards a method. The case law for structural limitation in method claims may be recited. Where, it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method for forming a slurry, applying the slurry to a substrate of Tang as modified by Gopalan and Nakano. By further modifying the process to include a mold and/or cast fabricated from silicone, as taught by Shim. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing a mold and/or that comprises silicone as it provides for the allow release of the component after completion of the infiltration step, and to be sufficiently non-reactive with the materials used in forming the composite article, ([0064] and provides for a cast that may be flexible, ([0067]). Accordingly, the use of a known material, i.e., silicone, for its intended use, namely a mold and/or cast, in a known environment, specifically a mold and/or cast used during infiltration of a preform provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olson et al. (US 20220098122 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) This disclosure provides a method of pressure sintering an environmental barrier coating on a surface of a ceramic substrate to form an article. The method includes the steps of etching the surface of the ceramic substrate to texture the surface, disposing an environmental barrier coating on the etched surface of the ceramic substrate wherein the environmental barrier coating includes a rare earth silicate, and pressure sintering the environmental barrier coating on the etched surface of the ceramic substrate in an inert or nitrogen atmosphere.
Tang et al. (US 20210071537 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A coating fabrication method includes providing engineered granules and thermally consolidating the engineered granules on a substrate to form a silicate-resistant barrier coating. Each of the engineered granules is an aggregate of at least one refractory matrix region and at least one calcium aluminosilicate additive region (CAS additive region) attached with the at least one refractory matrix region. In the thermal consolidation.
Jackson et al. (US 20220065113 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) An environmental barrier coating includes a barrier layer which includes a matrix, diffusive particles, and gettering particles; and a calcium-magnesia alumina-silicate (CMAS)-resistant component. The CMAS-resistant component includes hafnium silicate and a rare earth hafnate. An article and a method of fabricating an article are also disclosed.
Freling et al. (US 20170176007 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) An article such as a heat shield panel includes a substrate, and a multi-layered coating supported on the substrate. The multi-layered coating can include alternating layers of different ceramic material compositions having individual thicknesses of less than 25 micrometers.
Mikalsen et al. (US 20200055788 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A process of coating a substrate containing silicon with an environmental barrier coating, comprising altering a surface of the substrate and applying an environmental barrier layer to the surface of the substrate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights