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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/28/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 7 and 12 has/have been amended; claim(s) 9 has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 17-18 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1, 5-8, and 12-18 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan et al (US 6,068,728) in view of Blair et al (US 2019/0193198).
Regarding claim 1, Xuan discloses a method of making a ceramic device with a controlled roughness, the method comprising:
providing a ceramic substrate with a first surface (Fig. 6A #62 substrate; Col. 2 lines 3-4 ---"Alternative substrates include glass, ceramic and glass-ceramic materials and graphite.”) ;
producing a roughened surface by roughening the first surface (Col. 4 lines 17-24 ---"According to the present invention, the foregoing and other objects are achieved in part by a method of manufacturing a magnetic recording medium, which method comprises: laser texturing a surface of the medium through a lens comprising a first convex surface and a second surface, wherein the laser light beam is initially passed into the second surface through the lens and out of the first convex surface to impinge upon the medium surface.”);
and removing a first portion of the roughened surface without removing a second portion of the roughened surface (Col. 6 lines 45-50 ---"After extensive experimentation and investigation, it was discovered that the energy distributions for the negative and positive defocus ranges employing a lens focusing system for laser texturing a substrate can be made symmetrical by reversing the lens surfaces employed in conventional lens focusing systems.”; The effect of passing a defocused laser on a substrate will result in a first portion of the substrate being removed and not the second portion of the substrate being removed.).
However, Xuan does not disclose wherein the roughening includes passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and passing the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface, the first number of times being greater than the second number of times, such that the roughened surface has first and second portions of different average roughnesses.
Nonetheless, Blair in the same field of endeavor being laser based machining, teaches wherein the roughening includes passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface ([0013] lines 8-10 ---" Preferably, a first pass machines lines 1, 1+n, 1+2n, . . . where n is the number of passes to create the raster scan and n is greater than 1.”) and passing the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface ([0013] lines 10-13 ---" A second pass machines lines 2, 2+n, 2+2n, . . . with line 2 neighbouring and overlapping line 1, between line 1 and line 1+n, respectively.”), the first number of times being greater than the second number of times (The operator may choose the number of passes based on the “nth” number of passes given for the first and second raster scan passes given above for the first and second machining passes.), such that the roughened surface has first and second portions of different average roughnesses ([0027] ---" Preferably the machining step produces a contoured shape on the substrate with a surface roughness, Ra, in the range 0.6 μm to 1.5 μm. More preferably the range is 0.6 μm to 1.2 μm.” Any of these roughnesses may be achieved for the first or second portions.).
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 method of making a ceramic device with a controlled roughness of Xuan by incorporating the passing of a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and the passing of the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface as taught by Blair for the benefit of machining using high speed. (Blair Abstract)
Regarding claim 6, Xuan in view of Blair teaches the method of making as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Xuan teaches wherein the ceramic device is a vacuum device for an end effector (Examiner notes that the phrase “the ceramic device is a vacuum device for an end effector” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Xuan can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan et al (US 6,068,728) in view of Blair et al (US 2019/0193198) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Karandikar et al (US 2004/0238794).
Regarding claim 5, Xuan in view of Blair teaches the method of making as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the ceramic substrate includes a reaction-bonded silicon-carbide material.
Nonetheless, Karandikar in the same field of endeavor being machining of ceramic materials, teaches the ceramic substrate includes a reaction-bonded silicon-carbide material (Abstract ---" Specifically, microwave energy has been used to heat and melt a source of silicon metal, which in turn has infiltrated carbon-containing preforms to make reaction-bonded silicon carbide composites, respectively.”).
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 method of making of Xuan in view of Blair by incorporating reaction-bonded silicon carbide as taught by Karandikar for the benefit of the greatly enhanced properties such as hardness and Young's modulus. (Karandikar Abstract)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan et al (US 6,068,728) in view of Karandikar et al (US 2004/0238794) and Baumann et al (US 2004/0100110).
Regarding claim 7, Xuan discloses a ceramic device comprising:
a first surface (Fig. 6A #62 substrate) having a controlled roughness produced by a defocused laser beam (Col. 6 lines 45-50 ---"After extensive experimentation and investigation, it was discovered that the energy distributions for the negative and positive defocus ranges employing a lens focusing system for laser texturing a substrate can be made symmetrical by reversing the lens surfaces employed in conventional lens focusing systems.”),
wherein the first surface (Fig. 6A #62 substrate) is configured to provide one or more interfacial properties with a mating element (Examiner notes that the phrase “the first surface is configured to provide one or more interfacial properties with a mating element” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Xuan can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.);
and a second surface (Examiner considers the second surface to be a surface that is roughed by the defocused portion of the defocused laser beam.) having a second roughness, the controlled roughness being different from the second roughness (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Xuan does not disclose reaction-bonded silicon carbide; an opening for connecting a suction chamber to a vacuum source; wherein the device is an element of a vacuum end effector, and wherein the first surface is configured to prevent the device from sticking to a wafer, and to provide a vacuum seal at an interface between the first surface and the wafer.
Nonetheless, Karandikar teaches reaction-bonded silicon carbide (Abstract ---" Specifically, microwave energy has been used to heat and melt a source of silicon metal, which in turn has infiltrated carbon-containing preforms to make reaction-bonded silicon carbide composites, respectively.”).
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 ceramic device of Xuan by incorporating reaction-bonded silicon carbide as taught by Karandikar for the benefit of the enhanced properties such as hardness and Young's modulus.
Nonetheless, Baumann in the same field of endeavor being machining of ceramic materials, teaches an opening (Fig 2B #34 vacuum orifices) for connecting a suction chamber to a vacuum source;
wherein the device (Fig. 2B #33 wafer support pad) is an element of a vacuum end effector (Fig. 2B end effector),
and wherein the first surface is configured to prevent the device from sticking to a wafer, and to provide a vacuum seal at an interface between the first surface and the wafer (Examiner notes that the phrase “wherein the first surface is configured to prevent the device from sticking to a wafer, and to provide a vacuum seal at an interface between the first surface and the wafer” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Baumann can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
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 device of Xuan in view of by incorporating the device with an opening as taught by Baumann for the benefit of transporting a plurality of semiconductor wafers from one location to another.
Regarding claim 8, Xuan in view of Karandikar and Baumann teaches the ceramic device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), and Xuan teaches wherein the one or more interfacial properties include high wear-resistance, vacuum sealing, low friction (Col. 1 lines 54-57 ---" Conventional practices for addressing these apparent competing objectives involve providing a magnetic disk with a roughened recording surface to reduce the head/disk friction by techniques generally referred to as "texturing.“), and low stickiness.
Claim(s) 12- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar et al (US 2004/0238794) in view of Xuan et al (US 6,068,728), Baumann et al (US 2004/0100110), and Blair et al (US 2019/0193198).
Regarding claim 12, Karandikar discloses a method of making an end effector, comprising:
providing a substrate having a surface formed of reaction-bonded silicon-carbide material (Fig. 2);
However, Karandikar does not disclose creating a roughened surface by passing a defocused portion of a laser beam across the substrate surface; removing a portion of the roughened surface while leaving a contact portion of the roughened surface standing proud; and connecting the contact portion to an arm of the end effector; wherein the roughening includes passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and passing the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface, the first number of times being greater than the second number of times, such that the roughened surface has first and second portions of different average roughnesses.
Nonetheless, Xuan teaches creating a roughened surface by passing a defocused portion of a laser beam across the substrate surface (Col. 4 lines 17-24 ---"According to the present invention, the foregoing and other objects are achieved in part by a method of manufacturing a magnetic recording medium, which method comprises: laser texturing a surface of the medium through a lens comprising a first convex surface and a second surface, wherein the laser light beam is initially passed into the second surface through the lens and out of the first convex surface to impinge upon the medium surface.”);
removing a portion of the roughened surface while leaving a contact portion of the roughened surface standing proud (Col. 6 lines 45-50 ---"After extensive experimentation and investigation, it was discovered that the energy distributions for the negative and positive defocus ranges employing a lens focusing system for laser texturing a substrate can be made symmetrical by reversing the lens surfaces employed in conventional lens focusing systems.”; The effect of passing a defocused laser on a substrate will result in a first portion of the substrate being removed and not the second portion of the substrate being removed.).
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 method of Karandikar by incorporating the creation of a roughened surface and removal of a portion of the roughened surface for the benefit of reducing friction between the ceramic material and the workpiece.
Furthermore, Baumann teaches connecting the contact portion (Fig. 2B #33 wafer support pad) to an arm (Fig. 2B #27 wafer engaging fingers) of the end effector (Fig. 2B end effector).
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 method of Karandikar by incorporating the connecting the contact portion to an arm of the end effector as taught by Baumann for the benefit of transporting a plurality of semiconductor wafers from one location to another.
Nonetheless, Blair in the same field of endeavor being laser based machining, teaches wherein the roughening includes passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface ([0013] lines 8-10 ---" Preferably, a first pass machines lines 1, 1+n, 1+2n, . . . where n is the number of passes to create the raster scan and n is greater than 1.”) and passing the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface ([0013] lines 10-13 ---" A second pass machines lines 2, 2+n, 2+2n, . . . with line 2 neighbouring and overlapping line 1, between line 1 and line 1+n, respectively.”), the first number of times being greater than the second number of times (The operator may choose the number of passes based on the “nth” number of passes given for the first and second raster scan passes given above for the first and second machining passes.), such that the roughened surface has first and second portions of different average roughnesses ([0027] ---" Preferably the machining step produces a contoured shape on the substrate with a surface roughness, Ra, in the range 0.6 μm to 1.5 μm. More preferably the range is 0.6 μm to 1.2 μm.” Any of these roughnesses may be achieved for the first or second portions.).
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 method of making a ceramic device with a controlled roughness of Xuan by incorporating the passing of a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and the passing of the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface as taught by Blair for the benefit of machining using high speed. (Blair Abstract)
Regarding claim 13, Karandikar in view of Xuan, Baumann, and Blair teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), and Karandikar teaches wherein the substrate surface includes a ceramic surface (Fig. 2 SiC), and wherein an average surface roughness (Ra) of the roughened surface (Fig. 2 reaction formed SiC; Abstract ---"Reaction bonded silicon carbide (RBSC) ceramics with 7% diamond were shown to offer ballistic performance levels that matched the best commercial ceramics tested on the program.” The roughness of the RBSC is interpreted to be greater than the roughness of the SC since the ballistic performance is higher.) is greater than an average surface roughness (Ra) of the ceramic surface (Fig. 2 SiC).
Regarding claim 14, Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 13), but does not teach wherein the average surface roughness of the roughened surface is in a range of from 0.3 to 1.1 µm.
Nonetheless, Blair teaches the average surface roughness of the roughened surface is in a range of from 0.3 to 1.1 µm ([0028] ---" Preferably the smoothing step produces a contoured shape on the substrate with a surface roughness, Ra, in the range 0.4 μm to 0.6 μm. More preferably Ra is less than 0.5 μm.”).
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 method of Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann by incorporating the range of average roughness as taught by Blair for the benefit of producing a substrate that will hold a workpiece while mitigating damage to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 15, Karandikar in view of Xuan, Baumann, and Blair teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), and Blair teaches wherein the average surface roughness of the roughened surface is in a range of from 0.36 to 0.44 pm ([0028] ---" Preferably the smoothing step produces a contoured shape on the substrate with a surface roughness, Ra, in the range 0.4 μm to 0.6 μm. More preferably Ra is less than 0.5 μm.”).
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 method of Karandikar in view of Xuan, Baumann, and Blair by incorporating the range of average roughness as taught by Blair for the benefit of producing a substrate that will hold a workpiece while mitigating damage to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 16, Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), and Xuan teaches wherein the substrate surface includes a ceramic surface (Col. 2 lines 3-4 ---" Alternative substrates include glass, ceramic and glass-ceramic materials and graphite.”),
and wherein the defocused portion of the laser beam is incident on the ceramic surface while the laser beam is passed multiple times across the ceramic surface (Abstract ---" Another embodiment includes a multiple lens focusing system comprising an aplanatic meniscus lens and a companion doublet, wherein the laser light beam is sequentially passed into a concave surface of the aplanatic meniscus lens and through the companion doublet lens.”).
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 method of Karandikar in view of Xuan, Baumann, and Blair by substrate and multiple laser passes as taught by Xuan for the benefit of providing a controllable pattern of protrusions on the substrate. (Xuan Col. 4 lines 1-5)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan et al (US 6,068,728) in view of Blair et al (US 2019/0193198) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chernykh et al (RU 2525277 C1) and Nishi et al (US 2001/0055103).
Regarding claim 17, Xuan in view of Blair teaches the method of making as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Xuan teaches the defocused laser beam: (d) has a defocus value in the range of from 0.9 to 1.1 mm (Col. 7 lines 55-61 ---" Adverting to FIG. 8, reference numeral 81 represents the energy distribution at the surface of substrate 73, reference numerals 82 and 83 represent energy distributions at negative and positive defocus ranges of -100 .mu.m and +100 .mu.m, respectively, and reference numerals 84 and 85 represent energy distributions at defocus ranges of -200 .mu.m and +200 .mu.m, respectively.”).
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 method of Xuan in view of Blair by incorporating a defocus value in the range of from 0.9 to 1.1 mm as taught by Xuan, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
However, Xuan in view of Blair does not teach wherein the defocused laser beam: (a) has a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz; (b) has a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second; (c) has an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts.
Nonetheless, Chernykh in the same field of endeavor being laser devices teaches the defocused laser beam: (b) has a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second ; (c) has an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts (Page 2 para. 4).
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 method of Xuan in view of Blair by incorporating the defocused laser beam: (b) having a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second ; (c) having an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts as taught by Chernykh, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Furthermore, Nishi in the same field of endeavor being laser devices teaches the defocused laser beam: (a) has a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz ([0060] lines 17-22 ---"On the other hand, the oscillation frequency of the light source unit for converting the wavelength of the light beam from the semiconductor laser can be increased, for example, to about 100 kHz, i.e., to such an extent that the light beam can be substantially regarded as a continuous light beam.”)
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 method of Xuan in view of Blair by incorporating the defocused laser beam: (a) having a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz as taught by Nishi for the benefit of producing a substantially continuous light beam.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar et al (US 2004/0238794) in view of Xuan et al (US 6,068,728), Baumann et al (US 2004/0100110), and Blair et al (US 2019/0193198) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Chernykh et al (RU 2525277 C1) and Nishi et al (US 2001/0055103).
Regarding claim 18, Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), but and Xuan teaches the defocused laser beam: (d) has a defocus value in the range of from 0.9 to 1.1 mm (Col. 7 lines 55-61 ---" Adverting to FIG. 8, reference numeral 81 represents the energy distribution at the surface of substrate 73, reference numerals 82 and 83 represent energy distributions at negative and positive defocus ranges of -100 .mu.m and +100 .mu.m, respectively, and reference numerals 84 and 85 represent energy distributions at defocus ranges of -200 .mu.m and +200 .mu.m, respectively.”).
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 method of Xuan in view of Blair by incorporating a defocus value in the range of from 0.9 to 1.1 mm as taught by Xuan, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
However, Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann does not teach wherein the defocused laser beam: (a) has a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz; (b) has a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second; (c) has an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts.
Nonetheless, Chernykh in the same field of endeavor being laser devices teaches the defocused laser beam: (b) has a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second ; (c) has an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts (Page 2 para. 4).
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 method of Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann by incorporating the defocused laser beam: (b) having a tracking velocity in the range from 2.250 to 2.750 millimeters per second ; (c) having an intensity from 7.2 to 8.8 watts as taught by Chernykh, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Furthermore, Nishi in the same field of endeavor being laser devices teaches the defocused laser beam: (a) has a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz ([0060] lines 17-22 ---"On the other hand, the oscillation frequency of the light source unit for converting the wavelength of the light beam from the semiconductor laser can be increased, for example, to about 100 kHz, i.e., to such an extent that the light beam can be substantially regarded as a continuous light beam.”)
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 method of Karandikar in view of Xuan and Baumann by incorporating the defocused laser beam: (a) having a pulse frequency of 90 to 110 kilohertz as taught by Nishi for the benefit of producing a substantially continuous light beam.
Response to Arguments
For claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach roughening by passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and passing the defocuses laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The second step does teach smoothing. Smoothing is interpreted as a roughing, though smoothing usually result in a less rough surface.
For claim 7:
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Bauman and Xuan as asserted, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For claim 12:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blair et al (US 2019/0193198).
Blair teaches wherein the roughening includes passing a defocused laser beam a first number of times over a first portion of the first surface and passing the defocused laser beam a second number of times over a second portion of the first surface, the first number of times being greater than the second number of times, such that the roughened surface has first and second portions of different average roughnesses.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights