DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (09/02/2021), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-18) were examined in a Non-Final on 5/15/2025. This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission of 11/14/2025.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s arguments are in relation to the latest amendment. These are addressed in the office action as below.
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 1-18 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.
Limitations added to claims 1, 6 and 10 by the latest amendment are unclear. The claims recite bipolar voltage applied to the tubular coating apparatus and also add reversing of the voltage. However, bipolar pulse does not seem different from reversing of the pulse voltage as disclosed in the Fig 6 and 7. It is noted that bipolar voltage was recited before. Para 108 of the specification recites reversing the pulse which would point to bipolar pulse.
Further, its use in having uniform deposition and preventing disappearing anode is unclear. It is noted that this appears to be the result of the bipolar application of voltage to the workpiece.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Anthony Sheward (GB 2030180) in view of Boardman et al (20090311443) and Upadhyaya et al (US 20110151141).
John Anthony Sheward discloses a processing tube with gas inlet and pumping system to control low pressure (Fig 1), anode wire (Fig 1, 10 and P1, line58) through the first endcap (Fig 1-3) and longitudinally disposed through the axis to the second end cap (Fig 1-4). The tube is a negatively biased hollow cathode. The setup is for the purpose of depositing on the internal surface of the tube by plasma generated by the introduced gas and power applied between the central electrode which could be a wire and the outer electrode which could be the tube itself.
John Anthony Sheward discloses DC or RF power for plasma generation but does not explicitly disclose pulse biasing system for deposition of DLC coating and hollow tubes disposed in a vacuum chamber.
Boardman et al disclose an apparatus for coating an inner surface of an electrically conductive hollow tube (abstract, para 11 and claim 15), disposed within a vacuum chamber (1), the apparatus comprising: a first end cap (28), comprising a first electrically insulating material, having an opening for a gas supply (Fig 2); a second end cap (28), comprising a second electrically insulating material; a wire (22 and 24) passing through a center of the first end cap wherein the hollow tube (10) is disposed between the first end cap (28) and the second end cap (28), wherein the wire (22, 24) is electrically conductive and disposed at a center axis of the hollow tube; the gas supply (12) connected to the opening of the first end cap, wherein the gas supply fills the hollow tube with a gas, wherein the gas is contained within the hollow tube by the first end cap (28) and the second end cap (28), wherein the gas comprises a material which, when ignited by an electrical pulse, causes a carbon-based coating (DLC) to be deposited on the inner surface of the hollow tube (60); and a pulse biasing system (20), capable of generating a series of electrical pulses, having a negative output connected to the hollow tube (60) and a positive output connected to the wire (22,24), wherein the hollow tube acts as a cathode and the wire acts as an anode; wherein the pulse biasing system (20) delivers a series of positive and negative electrical pulses to the wire and the hollow tube, wherein an electrical field is generated between the hollow tube and the wire for igniting the gas to 3Reference No.: TUDA 15.01 PCT-USPATENT deposit the carbon-based coating on the inner surface of the hollow tube (10,60). Also see (para 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19). Regarding anode wire, it is noted that (22, 24) are situated at the center and pass through the end cap.
It would have been obvious to have pulsed biasing system as being an alternative way of generating plasma taught by Boardman et al and to use it for DLC deposition. It is noted that DLC is an insulated carbon-based coating.
Regarding the amendment as best understood it is noted that Upadhyaya et al disclose more explicitly deposition in a tubular workpiece by applying voltage between workpiece 10 as cathode and anode wire 22 or 20. The voltage could be bipolar pulse of varying specifications and frequency (See Fig 1 and Para 51-52, 87 and 93). Upadhyaya et al further teach reversing pulse (Para 93-95). It is note that the application of bipolar voltage would also have resulted in similar outcome in the prior art.
Therefore, having bipolar pulse voltage applied to tubular work piece for uniform deposition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Boardman et al would be capable of providing pulses at required specifications for the process required.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, absent any particular relationship between pulse parameters and length of the hollow tubes, the requirement is interpreted as the pulse parameter capable of creating plasma throughout the length of the hollow tubes. Boardman discloses this capability.
Claims 10, 12 and 15-16 are rejected along with claim 1 as citing same limitations in a method claim.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Anthony Sheward (GB 2030180) in view of Boardman et al (20090311443) and Upadhyaya et al (US 20110151141) and further in view of M. Huth (US 1209710).
Sheward in view of Boardman do not disclose the anode wire centralized by a weight when the hollow tube is vertically oriented relative to a ground surface.
Huth discloses an electrode wire is centralized by a weight when the hollow tube is vertically oriented relative to a ground surface (wires present within longitudinal vertical hollow cathode held vertically centralized (relative to ground) by glass ball weight; Fig 1 page 1, lines 70-80; page 2, lines 5-25; claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Sheward invention to provide wherein the wire is centralized by a weight when the hollow tube is vertically oriented relative to a ground surface, as taught by Huth, in order to provide wires being supported in downward orientation (Huth; claim 3). It is a simple substitution of position and predictably obvious. (KSR vs. Teleflex)
Claims 3, 6-9, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Anthony Sheward (GB 2030180) in view of Boardman et al (20090311443) and Upadhyaya et al (US 20110151141) and further in view of Collins et al (US 2007/0119546).
John Anthony Sheward in view of Boardman do not disclose gas mixer and gas splitter, alignment of hollow tubes and 10-500 watt power and gas mixer explicitly.
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 14, Collins discloses a gas mixer connected between the gas supply and the hollow tube, wherein the material comprising the gas is a mixture of gaseous chemical components, wherein the gas mixer mixes the gaseous chemical components in a fixed ratio (gas splitter 5440 supplies mixture of gases (chemical components) to gas feed lines 4490, 4492 (gas mixer) from where mixed gas is delivered equally to multiple hollow conduits 150, where gas flow controllers 5310, 5320, 5330 control gas flow rates (providing a fixed ratio); Fig 15, 54; paragraphs [0119], [0203]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Sheward in view of Boardman invention to provide wherein a gas mixer is connected between the gas supply and the hollow tube, wherein the material comprising the gas is a mixture of gaseous chemical components, wherein the gas mixer mixes the gaseous chemical components in a fixed ratio, as taught by Collins, in order to provide separate gas inlets to hollow conduit (Collins; paragraph [0124]) in order to provide a highly controlled gas supply system for complex mixed gases. Boardman further discloses wherein the mixture of gaseous chemical components comprises inert gases (reactive gases with inert push gas argon are introduced into hollow conduit; paragraphs [0017], [0019]) and plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition ("PECVD") precursor gases (applying DLC coating on conductive pipe surfaces using PECVD process; paragraph [0017]).
Sheward in view of Boardman do not disclose linearly aligning the plurality of conductive hollow tubes such that an end of one conductive hollow tube is fluidly connected to an end of another conductive hollow tube, wherein a longitudinal center of each conductive hollow tube is aligned. Collins discloses linearly aligning the plurality of conductive hollow tubes such that an end of one conductive hollow tube is fluidly connected to an end of another conductive hollow tube (multiple hollow conduits 150 a-d made of sheet metal (conductive), each with port 155, 160 connected to chamber (fluidly connected), placed in parallel alignment (linearly aligning) with each other; figures 15-16; paragraphs [0120], [0151], [0157]), wherein a longitudinal center of each conductive hollow tube is aligned (multiple hollow conduits 150 made of sheet metal (conductive) with port 155 (top), 160 (bottom) connected to chamber; figure 15; paragraphs [0120], [0151], [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Sheward in view of Boardman invention to provide linearly aligning the plurality of conductive hollow tubes such that an end of one conductive hollow tube is fluidly connected to an end of another conductive hollow tube, wherein a longitudinal center of each conductive hollow tube is aligned, as taught by Collins, in order to provide array of parallel tube enclosures connected to single chamber (Collins; paragraph [0158]).
Regarding claim 13 Sheward in view of Boardman further discloses wherein the mixture of chemical components comprises inert gases and PECVD precursors (reactive gases with inert push gas argon are introduced into hollow conduit, where DLC coating on conductive pipe surfaces using PECVD process; paragraphs [0017], [0019]). Boardman further discloses wherein each pulse, of the series of pulses, is separated by an off time (DC power supply 20 supplying pulsed negative bias using asymmetric bipolar pulse with small short positive pulse with long negative pulse, at multiple duty cycle levels (power levels) with off portion (off time) of cycle; abstract; paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0016]), wherein the off time varies with a length or height of the hollow tube (DC power supply 20 supplying pulsed negative bias using asymmetric bipolar small short positive with long negative pulse, at multiple duty cycle levels (power levels) with off portion (off time) of cycle varying based on depletion of positive surface charge buildup, which is dependent on size of conductive hollow pipe; paragraphs [0011], [0013]-[0014], [0059]).
Sheward in view of Boardman do not disclose wherein the plurality of power levels is in the range from about 10 watts to about 500 watts per conductive hollow tube. Collins discloses wherein the plurality of power levels is in the range from about 10 watts to about 500 watts per conductive hollow tube (chamber has 500 watts of RF power generated within hollow conduits 150; abstract; paragraphs [0146], [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Sheward in view of Boardman invention to provide wherein the plurality of power levels is in the range from about 10 watts to about 500 watts per conductive hollow tube, as taught by Collins, in order to provide bias power of 50 to upwards of 1000 watts which is an order of magnitude higher than inductively coupled reactors, to provide desired reactive gas flux (Collins; paragraphs [0148]-[0149]).
Regarding claims 7-9 having plurality of hollow tubes connected to same power supply through anode and cathode splitters is nothing but duplication of parts. Power distribution from common source to different users was well known.
Claims 7-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Anthony Sheward (GB 2030180) in view of Boardman et al (20090311443) and Upadhyaya et al (US 20110151141) and Collins et al (US 2007/0119546) and further in view of Beattie et al (US 4733530) or Holland et al (US 20120258606).
John Anthony Sheward in view of Boardman et al and Collins et al do not disclose anode or cathode splitter.
Having cathode splitter (also being analogous to anode splitter) to provide pulse bias to plural hollow cathodes from a single power source in parallel would have been obvious.
Beattie et al discloses further comprising a cathode splitter, wherein the cathode splitter is electrically connected between a negative output of a pulse biasing system and the plurality hollow tubes (emission current control system (splitter) for balancing the individual emission currents from an array of hollow cathodes; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Collins invention to provide further comprising a cathode splitter, wherein the cathode splitter is electrically connected between the negative output of the pulse biasing system and the plurality hollow tubes, as taught by Beattie in order to provide control over emission current to provide equal current to each cathode of multiple hollow cathodes to prevent premature failure of hollow cathode source due to operation above maximum emission current ( abstract).
As discussed, having common power to plurality of users was common as disclosed for example by Holland et al in Fig 3G where power 387 and 389 and gas 388 was supplied to plurality of sources 363.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anders et al (US 6140773) discloses power source 388 and gas feed 390 distributed to plasma sources 354 to 362 through splitter 394.
deVilliers et al (US 20180096827) disclose power splitter for an array of plasma sources 106 (Fig 3).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716