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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al (EP 2784799).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 17-18, Greene discloses a method for producing a coating layer comprising an oxynitride of “metals selected from the groups IVA - VIA of the periodic table and at least one processing metal element selected out of Hf, Ta, W, Zr, Nb and Mo” (Abstract), wherein Example 18 teaches the coating layer of the oxynitride also consists of five elements of Ta, Ti, Cr, Al, and Si that is formed via “HIPIMS” (high power impulse magnetron sputtering) technique or “cathodic arc” (claimed “ARC PVD”) technique (Abstract; para 0004, 0043, and 0074; Table 2), thereby resulting in the coating layer being dense and hard with “high temperature resistance” (para 0006 and 0096; Table 2). Greene further discloses in fig. 1 the HIPIMS technique (of Example 18) is in a PVD sputter coating device [1] for evaporating target materials from at least two targets [28],[30] in a vacuum chamber [12] that comprises reactive gases of oxygen and nitrogen with a substrate temperature of “less than 300oC, and further preferred even at less than 200oC” (i.e. 200-300oC) (para 0032-0033, 0038, and 0046-0048; Table 2). Regarding the five elements of Ta, Ti, Cr, Al, and Si in the coating layer each being between 10-40 at%, Greene suggests the following:
Greene teaches the coating layer “predominantly consists of the above layer materials, while the processing metal element is only in relatively small atomic concentration” (emphasis added) (para 0043), wherein para 0043 states the Ta is “the processing metal element” and the Ti, Cr, Al, and Si are the “above layer materials”; Greene also teaches that the coating layer contains an amount of the Ta at the “relatively small atomic concentration” between 1-18 at% or preferred between 6-13 at% (resulting in a range of 13-18 at% for Ta) (para 0043); Greene further provides a definition for the term “predominantly” as being “among the elements present in a material composition, the predominant element provides the highest atomic percentage” (para 0017), thus each of the Ti, Cr, Al, and Si is a “predominant element” that must be greater than the range of 13-18 at% for Ta. Since Greene does not specify further guidance as to particular amounts for each of the Ti, Cr, Al, and Si other than to be greater than the amount of Ta, one of ordinary skill would have expected or found it obvious to then have each amount of the Ti, Cr, Al, and Si be equally divided as a balance of the coating layer besides the Ta, resulting in each amount of the Ti, Cr, Al, and Si being approximately 20.5-21.75 at% (or about 20-22 at%).
Since Green teaches the claim 1 requirements of evaporating at least two targets of Ta, Ti, Cr, Al, and Si using the HIPIMS technique with the reactive gases of oxygen and nitrogen at the substrate temperature of 200-300oC to form the coating layer of the Ta, Ti, Cr, Al, and Si that is dense and hard with high temperature resistance, wherein the coating layer comprises Ta at 13-18 at% and each of the Al, Ta, Si, Cr, and Ti at about 20-22 at%, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Greene also teaches the resulting coating layer being “a multi-anion HEA-oxynitride structure which comprises a cation lattice consisting of five elements and an anion lattice formed of two or more elements, whereas two of said two or more elements present in said anion lattice are oxygen and nitrogen” and “said anion lattice are oxygen and nitrogen” since “said five elements are Al, Ta, Si, Cr, and Ti […] each present in a content range between 10 at.% and 40 at.%” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claim 3, Greene further discloses in Example 18 the target materials of the at least two targets [28],[30] comprise the five elements present in the cation lattice (para 0096; Table 2).
With respect to claim 5, Greene further discloses the coating layer is deposited onto a substrate by applying a negative bias voltage to the substrate of 60-200 V (para 0023), or “especially preferred 80-120 V” (para 0025).
With respect to claims 6 and 19, Greene further discloses in Examples 39-40 and 49 from Table 5 (alternative to Example 18 from Table 2) the target materials of at least three targets are evaporated and deposited simultaneously via the HIPIMS technique for the coating layer to consist of Ta, Ti, Cr, Al, and Si with the oxynitride from figs. 8 and/or 9 (alternative to fig. 1) (para 0032, 0038, 0046, 0091-0094, and 0099).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-9 filed 7/20/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
On p. 5-6, Applicant explanation for support of the ‘cation lattice formed by only five elements each at 10-40 at%’ is persuasive; the previous 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the “five elements”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the ‘atomic percentages of 10-40%’ as per Applicant’s explanation (see p. 6 Remarks 7/20/2026); the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 18 has been amended to depend on claim 1; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-9 with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference Greene being applied in the current rejection.
Rejoinder
The Request on p. 9 is noted.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
