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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 21-25 are pending and rejected. Claims 5, 6, and 14-20 are cancelled. Claims 13 and 23 are amended. Claim 25 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdolvand, US 2018/0185958 A1 in view of Zolotovskaya, “High-performance thermal emitters based on laser-engineered metal surface”, 2020 (provided on the IDS of 5/18/2023).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 10, Abdolvand teaches a method for laser-processing a metallic surface to produce a functionalized metallic surface (a method of blackening a surface by applying laser radiation to the surface, abstract, where the surface is metallic, 0049), the method comprising:
providing a substrate having the metallic surface, wherein the metallic surface comprises one or more of aluminum, iron, or copper (where the target surface comprises copper, stainless steel, or aluminum, 0049);
applying a pulsed laser beam with a controlled fluence to a region of the metallic surface during a single raster scan across the region, wherein the pulsed laser beam includes laser pulses having a pulse length of between 1 femtosecond and 100 picoseconds, wherein the laser pulses have a fluence of between 0.005 J/cm2 to 10.0 J/cm2, and wherein the laser pulses have an average spot size of between 100 nm and 1 cm, wherein metal material in the region of the metallic surface melts and/or ablates and/or ablates and redeposits due to the applied pulsed laser beam and creates multiple self-organized structures on the metallic surface during the single raster scan, the self-organized structures comprising microscale and nanoscale features (where the copper treatment conditions include a wavelength of 532 nm or 1064 nm, a pulse width of about 10 ps, a spot diameter of 12, 40, or 73 microns, a fluence of 4.16, 0.3, or 0.39 J/cm2, and scanning once or from 1 to 10, 0094-0096 and Table 1 and the aluminum conditions include a wavelength of 1064 nm, a pulse width of about 10 ps, a spot diameter of 12 microns, a fluence of 0.93 J/cm2 and scanning once or from 1 to 10 times, 0098-0099 and Table 2, such that the pulse lengths, fluence, wavelengths, and spot size of the treatment conditions are within the range of claims 1, 8, and 10, where the process can be done in a single raster scan, and where the process includes evaporating material without substantial melting, 0011, or the surface may partially melt, 0052, such that the material will ablate and/or melt, and where the process using picosecond laser pulses provide structures in the range of 1 to 50 micrometers covered with nanostructures, 0152, such that the process will provide self-organized structures comprising microscale and nanoscale features, where the process can be done in a single raster scan);
wherein the metallic surface having the one or more laser- generated structures is the functionalized metallic surface (where the textured surface is considered to be a functionalized metallic surface).
Therefore, Abdolvand provides pulse lengths, fluence, wavelengths, and spot sizes of the treatment conditions within the range of claims 1, 8, and 10. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
They teach that the process may change the emissivity of the surface and provide a desired value or range of values of emissivity (0008 and 0010). They teach that treated stainless steel samples showed increase emissivity over all the wavelengths measured and the values do not depend on the angle of the incoming light (0114-0116, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6).
They do not teach that the surface is characterized by broadband omni-directional hemispherical emissivity.
Zolotovskaya teaches laser structuring stainless steel surfaces (abstract and pg. 623, section 2). They teach that effective thermal management is of paramount importance for all high-temperature systems, where cooling of the systems relies on radiative heat transfer requiring high spectral emissivity of surfaces, which is strongly affected by the surface condition (abstract). They teach that pulsed laser structuring of stainless steel in air results in spectral hemispherical emissivity values exceeding 0.95 in the 2.5-15-micron spectral range (abstract). They teach that for effective radiative cooling, broadband emissivity control is preferred (pg. 622, section 1). They teach that textured metallic coatings have been shown as good material candidates exhibiting high emissivity of greater than or equal to 0.8, good temperature and corrosion resistance (pg. 622-623, section 1). They teach that laser-assisted surface structure has shown great potential for production of high-performance metal thermal emitters, where a large variety of surface topographies can be accessed by varying laser treatment parameters such as laser fluence and the number of pulses per spot and the processing atmosphere (pg. 623, section 1). They teach that femtosecond laser sources have been used to direct nano and microstructuring to provide high-emissivity performance (greater than 0.9) in the range from 4 to 16 microns using a hierarchical surface structure consisting of randomly positioned microcavities with sub-micrometer surface protrusions (pg. 623, section 1). They teach that the increase in emissivity from ~0.3 to ~0.97 is a result of combined action of a surface oxide layer, promoted by the laser processing in air, and the surface microstructure, formed as a result of the laser treatment (pg. 624, section 3). They teach that emissivity is highly sensitive to the detailed surface topography for surfaces with roughness exceeding the wavelength of light (pg. 626, section 3). Therefore, Zolotovskaya teaches that laser structuring is a desirable method for patterning metal surfaces so as to increase the hemispherical emissivity where laser parameters such as fluence, pulses per spot, and the processing atmosphere can be varied to provide a topography for optimizing the emissivity and where femtosecond laser processing is also known to increase the emissivity.
From the teachings of Zolotovskaya, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Abdolvand to have laser structured the metal surface and to have optimized the laser parameters to form the micro and nanoscale structures so as to provide a surface characterized by broadband hemispherical emissivity with an increase in the hemispherical emissivity within the range of claim 3 compared to the surface prior to applying the pulsed laser beam under otherwise identical conditions so as to also provide the features of claim 2, and to have a hemispherical emissivity meeting the requirements of claim 4 because Zolotovskaya teaches that laser structuring is a desirable method for patterning metal surfaces so as to increase the hemispherical emissivity where laser parameters such as fluence, pulses per spot, and the processing atmosphere can be varied to provide a topography for optimizing the emissivity and where femtosecond laser processing is also known to increase the emissivity, such that it will be expected to provide a structured metal surface having desirable emissivity properties for forming a suitable metal emitter. Further, since Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1, where the pulse lengths, fluence, wavelengths, and spot size are within the ranges of claims 1, 8, and 10, and Abdolvand indicates that the emissivity does not depend on the angle of the incoming light, the resulting structure is also expected to exhibit omni-directional hemispherical emissivity. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 7, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1, where they suggest using a pulse length of about 10 ps for copper, aluminum, and stainless steel (Tables 1-3). They teach using broad treatment ranges where the pulse length ranges from 200 fs to 200 ps (0095-0096, 0098-0099, and 0101-0103). Therefore, they suggest using a pulse length overlapping the range of claim 7, where about 10 ps is also considered to overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Regarding claim 9, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1. They provide broad ranges of treating aluminum, where the spot diameter is in the range of 1 to 50 microns, the repetition rate of the laser is from 10 kHz to 1 MHz, the scan speed ranges from 1 mm/s to 100 mm/s, and the average power ranges from 0.1 W to 1 W (0099). They teach that the laser parameters are related by formulas for the number of pulses fired per each spot (pulse count), fluence, etc. (0090-0091). Using the broad ranges, the fluence ranges from 0.005 J/cm2 to 12,732 J/cm2 so as to overlap the claimed range for fluence, as well as the pulse width, with a spot size within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Further, as discussed above for claim 1, Zolotovskaya suggests optimizing the laser parameters to provide the surface with broadband directional hemispherical emissivity, where since the range overlaps the claimed range, the resulting structure is also expected to overlap a range in which it demonstrates omni-directional emissivity. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 11, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1 and using a wavelength within the range of claim 10. They teach that the wavelength of radiation may be in a range of 100 nm to 2,000 nm (0036), such that the wavelength range overlaps the claimed range, where there is no indication that the wavelength changes such that all pulses are understood to have the same wavelength.
Regarding claims 12, 21, and 22, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1, where since they provide the process of claim 1, as least a portion of the material is expected to be ablated and redeposit. Abdolvand teach that the process is performed in air (0087). Therefore, the metallic surface will be in an environment containing oxygen, such that at least a portion of the ablated material is expected to oxidize and redeposit on the region of the metallic surface to produce an oxide layer on the self-organized structure. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 23, as discussed above for claim 1, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 23 of treating aluminum using a pulse length, fluence, and spot size within the range of claim 23. They provide an example where the pulse count is 240 (Table 2). They provide broad ranges of treating aluminum, where the spot diameter is in the range of 1 to 50 microns, the repetition rate of the laser is from 10 kHz to 1 MHz, the scan speed ranges from 1 mm/s to 100 mm/s, and the average power ranges from 0.1 W to 1 W (0099). They teach that the laser parameters are related by formulas for the number of pulses fired per each spot (pulse count), fluence, etc. (0090-0091). Using the broad ranges, the pulse count ranges from 0.1 to 50,000 counts and the fluence ranges from 0.005 J/cm2 to 12,732 J/cm2 so as to overlap the claimed range for pulse count, fluence, as well as the pulse width, with a spot size within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Further, as discussed above for claim 1, Zolotovskaya suggests optimizing the laser parameters to provide the surface with broadband omni-directional hemispherical emissivity. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 23, where since they provide the process of claim 23, as least a portion of the material is expected to be ablated and redeposit. Abdolvand teach that the process is performed in air (0087). Therefore, the aluminum surface will be in an environment containing oxygen, such that at least a portion of the ablated material is expected to oxidize and redeposit on the region of the aluminum surface to produce an aluminum oxide layer on the self-organized structure. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 25, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1. Abdolvand further teaches that the laser pulses have an average spot size of 1 micron to 5 microns or in a range of 1 micron to 100 microns (0030), such that the spot size is considered to overlap the claimed range at the endpoint (if 100 microns is inclusive) or to be close enough to render the claimed range obvious because similar results would be expected between, for example, a spot size of 99 microns and 100 microns (if 100 microns is outside of the range). They further teach that the separation of adjacent peaks or troughs of the periodic structure may be in a range of 0.5 microns to 100 microns (0039), so as to overlap the claimed width of the microscale features. They teach that the peak to tough distance is in the range of 500 nm to 500 microns or from 30 to 60 microns (0014), where the peak to trough distance is understood to be the height of the features. Further, since Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest using laser parameters within the ranges of claims 1, 8, and 10 and a spot size overlapping or close enough to render the claimed range obvious due to the expectation of similar results, the resulting features are also expected to have a height within or overlapping the claimed range. Therefore, the features have a width and height overlapping the claimed range and a spot size overlapping or close enough to render obvious the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2144.05(I): Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Claims 12, 21, 22, and 24 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Nomura, US 2019/0206761 A1.
Regarding claims 12, 21, 22, and 24, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the processes of claims 1 and 23, where Abdolvand teaches performing the process in air (0087). They teach that in the PAI regime using picosecond pulse widths, minimal material is recast (0143 and 0145). They teach that the material evaporates or is vaporized in a plasma (0011, 0053, and 0152). They teach that melting may also occur (0052).
They do not specifically teach that the material is redeposited.
Nomura teaches a metal member that includes a metal substrate and a porous metal layer (abstract). They teach roughening a surface of a metal thin film by irradiation with a laser beam having a lower energy density, for example, of 100 J/cm2 or less (i.e., 1000 kJ/m2 or less) to form an uneven structure (0019). They teach irradiating the metal substrate with the laser to melt and evaporate the surface of the metal substrate, and solidify and reattach the metal substrate after the irradiation (0042). They teach irradiating the metal substrate with a pulse-oscillated laser beam adjusted so that the energy density is less than 300 J/cm2 (3000 kJ/m2) and the pulse width is less than 1 µs (0046). They teach that when attaching the melted portion of the metal substrate in the step of melting and evaporating the metal substrate is solidified and the evaporated portion is reattached (0049). They teach that part of the evaporated metal substrate is deposited inside and outside the laser irradiated region (0050). They teach that a part of the evaporated metal substrate is oxidized after the deposition to form an oxide, and fixed, thereby forming the porous metal layer (0050). They teach that it is preferably to perform at least the step of reattaching the metal substrate in an atmosphere containing oxygen, for example, in an atmospheric environment of the like (0050).
From the teachings of Nomura, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ablation process of Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya, in air will result in the redeposition of oxidized metal on the microfeatures because Nomura teaches that when performing laser roughening of a metal in an atmospheric environment, i.e., air, it will result in the evaporated metal being oxidized and reattaching to the surface when using process parameters similar to those of Abdolvand such that it will be expected to also result in the formation of the one or more oxidized-metal-coated structures.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wobbeking, “Conical microstructuring of titanium by reactive gas assisted laser texturing”, 2019.
Regarding claims 13, Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya suggest the process of claim 1. Abdolvand further teaches that the scanning of the pulsed laser beam over the surface may be repeated between 2 and 10 times or may be performed once (0034), where they perform the process in air (0087).
They do not teach that the process is performed in an environment free of oxygen.
Wobbeking teaches microstructuring titanium and Ti-6Al-4V with 0.75 ps laser pulses (abstract). They teach that femtosecond laser pulses are known to form microconical structures on titanium, where they provide an example using 60 fs pulses with a fluence of 1.44 J/cm2 (pg. 37599, Introduction and Fig. 1g). They teach using the 0.75 ps laser pulses to also form conical structures on Ti and Ti-6Al-4V using a reactive gas of air and bromine (pg. 37603, Discussion, Table 2, and Fig. 4c). They teach that the conical structured surfaces using femtosecond-laser processing in nitrogen, using ps processing in air, and ps processing in bromine/air all show an increase in the thermal emissivity of over 100% (pg. 37603, Discussion and Table 2). They teach that similar conical structures are provided on aluminum using 60 fs pulses, where similar structuring is provided when using ps pulses by changing the fluence and the number of hits per spot (pg. 37598-37599, Introduction, Fig. 1a, and Fig. 1d), suggesting that aluminum can also be treated using fs to ps laser pulses to provide an increased in emissivity which is indicated as occurring with the conical surface structuring. Wobbeking teaches that laser structuring in different environments provides different increases in emissivity of the material, where they teach treating in nitrogen, air, air with bromine, etc. (Table 2). They teach that the different irradiation environments provide different structuring effects (Fig. 4).
From the teachings of Wobbeking, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the process of Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya to have performed the laser treatment in an environment free of oxygen because Wobbeking teaches that irradiating in different environments, including those without air (nitrogen) and those with air provide different changes in emissivity and surface structure such that it will be expected to provide suitable atmospheres for the laser treatment process for forming a metallic surface having desirable emissivity properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 10/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments over the 112(a) rejection are considered persuasive and therefore, the previous 112(a) rejection have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over the spot size of Abdolvand, as discussed above they provide a spot size within the range of claim 1, along with a pulse length, fluence, and wavelength within the ranges of claims 1, 8, and 10, such that the process of Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya is also expected to provide a surface characterized by broadband omni-directional hemispherical emissivity. Further, the spot size of Abdolvand is indicated as ranging from 1 to 100 microns (0030), such that the spot size includes a range where it is larger than the separation distance of adjacent peaks. Further, Abdolvand teaches that the process can be done in a single pass as an alternative to providing a cross-hatch pattern (0015).
Therefore, since Abdolvand in view of Zolotovskaya provide laser treatment conditions within the claimed range, or overlapping/close to the claimed range as in new claim 25, the resulting surface is expected to also have the claimed properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718