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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 7/14/25. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-17, and 20-23 are pending, wherein claim 23 was newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 21-22 require that the “first adhesion layer and the second adhesion layer are each independently a titanium layer or a zirconium layer.” This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which is depends (claims 1 and 14), as the independent claims already require that the first adhesion layer and the second adhesion layer are each independently a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-4, 11, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 103160797 A, previously cited) in view of Qiao (CN 102776474 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a die-cast mold (fig 2, paragraph [0002]) comprising:
a die (fig 2, die casting mold substrate 1) having a mold surface (fig 2, paragraph [0031], see surface of substrate 1 on which coating is deposited);
a multilayer coating disposed over the mold surface (paragraph [0031-0032], figs 1-2, nano-ceramic coating 2), the multilayer coating including an adhesion layer (fig 1, paragraph [0032], transition layer 21) contacting the mold surface (fig 1-2, paragraph [0019], transition layer deposited on substrate) and a base layer (fig 1, paragraph [0032], functional layer 22) contacting the adhesion layer (fig 1-2, paragraph [0020], functional layer deposited on the transition layer); and
wherein the base layer is composed of a component selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxycarbide, zirconium aluminum nitride, and zirconium silicon carbonitride (paragraph [0024], functional layer is a multi-layer including nitrides or carbides or oxides or nitride carbides of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr, thus disclosing an embodiment of oxides and carbides of Zr, nitrides of Zr and Al, and carbides and nitrides of Zr and Si), and wherein the adhesion layer includes a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer (the transition layer is a simple substance or nitride or carbide or nitride carbide of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr, thus also encompasses Zr or Ti, note the example in paragraph [0032] where the transition layer may be Cr and CrN (thus Li at least encompasses Ti and TiN or Zr and ZrN as the transition layer)).
Li shows the die casting mold in figure 2 (appears to show a half), but is quiet to the die cast mold having a second die having a second mold surface, the first and second die mating to define a mold cavity, and that the second die includes the multilayer coatings.
However, use of two die halves is well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include a second die half, having the multilayer coating, so as to define the mold cavity for the die casting process described in Li. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Li teaches the adhesion layer is a simple substance or nitride or carbide or nitride carbide of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr (paragraph [0024]), with an example of the adhesion layer including Cr (paragraph [0032]), but is quiet as to whether the adhesion layer is a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer.
Qiao teaches a nano composite coating (paragraph [0002]) having broad application including molds (paragraph [0005]). Qiao teaches a Ti transition layer as an inner layer (paragraph [0009]) and a nanocomposite coating including TiN, TiAlN, and CrTiAlN arranged above as a surface layer (paragraph [0009]). The coatings are applied by magnetron sputtering which is a type of PVD process having high precision, smooth, and dense surface (paragraph [0025]), where a Ti target is turned on when preparing the TiN, a Ti target and Al target is turned on when preparing the TiAlN coating, and a Ti target, Al target, and Cr target are turned on when preparing the CrTiAlN coating (paragraph [0010]). Doing so reduces the excessive difference in thermal expansion coefficients generated when the nano multilayer coating is directly coated on the base material, thereby increasing the bonding strength (paragraph [0010]).
In light of the teachings of Qiao, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a transition layer of a metallic Zr in Li, when forming the outer multilayer coating of a ceramic Zr layer, as the Zr transition layer would provide a better transition for matching the differences in thermal expansion coefficients.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the multilayer coatings are each formed by physical vapor deposition (paragraph [0019-0020], deposited by PVD method).
Regarding claims 3-4, Li is quiet to whether the multilayer coating is substantially pinhole free, having a pinhole density less than about 50 pinholes/mm2.
However, Li teaches the multilayer coating is substantially identical to that of the claim (transition layer composed of Ti or Zr and functional layer composed of a oxides, carbides, nitrocarbides of Zr), and further teaches the multilayer coating formed in the same way (PVD), the claimed properties of the coating being pinhole free, having a pinhole density less than about 50 pinholes/mm2, are presumed to be inherent.
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). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches the adhesion layers have a thickness from about 0.05 microns to about 0.5 microns (paragraph [0032], 400 to 600 nm overlaps the claimed range, MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the first adhesion layer and the second adhesion layer are each independently a titanium layer or a zirconium layer (see rejection of claim 1 above, note that Li teaches the transition layer may be a simple substance including Ti or Zr, note example where transition layer is a metal Cr layer and a CrN layer deposited above and that Li teaches the use of other elements including Zr (would be obvious to use Zr transition layer when coating a Zr based functional layer)).
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the first adhesion layer and the second adhesion layer each independently consist of titanium or zirconium (see rejection of claim 1 above, note that Li teaches the transition layer may be a simple substance including Ti or Zr, note example where transition layer is a metal Cr layer and a CrN layer deposited above and that Li teaches the use of other elements including Zr (would be obvious to use Zr transition layer when coating a Zr based functional layer), with regards to “consist of”, note that the claimed adhesion layer is met by the metal layer of the transition layer of Li, whereas the claimed base layer includes the nitride layer of the transition layer and the functional layer of Li).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Qiao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Abusulik (WO 2016/027832 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, the combination is quiet to the multilayer coating having a surface roughness that is less than 60 nm.
Abusulik teaches a coated mold for die casting having exceptional seizure resistance and erosion resistance (abstract), where the first and second hard coating have an arithmetic mean roughness of 0.05 µm or less (machine translation, p.2 lines 23-30, p.3 lines 19-26, falling within the claimed range). A roughness less than 0.05 µm improves the adhesion of the hard coating (p.3 lines 28-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Li such that the multilayer coating has a roughness less than is 0.05 µm, as Abusulik teaches the low roughness of a hard coating for a die casting mold improves the adhesion of the hard coating.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Qiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue et al (US 2006/0032602, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, the combination fails to teach the first base layer and the second base layer each independently have a thickness from about 1 micron to 5 microns.
Inoue et al teaches a mold used for die casting (paragraph [0001]), including coating layers on its working plane (abstract), where a layer just above the base material is preferably 0.5 to 3.0 µm, and the outermost layer is preferably 0.5 to 5.0 µm (abstract), wherein the layers are deposited by physical vapor deposition (paragraph [0031]). When the thickness of the outermost layer is less than 0.5µm, the resistance to seizure and cracking cannot be obtained, whereas when the outermost layer is formed in a thickness of more than 5.0µm, it is early peeled depending on use conditions (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the thickness of the functional layer of the coating of Li, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a thickness that is too thin would not provide the resistance to seizure and cracking, and where a thickness too thick may lead to early peeling of the layer.
"[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). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 12-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Qiao and Kong (CN 107900309 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches that the functional layer is a multilayer and can include oxides of Zr (Li, paragraph [0024], among other elements), but is quiet to the zirconium oxide layer disposed over and contacting the first and second base layers.
Kong teaches preparing a double-layer protective layer on the surface of die casting molds to greatly improve the anti-stick, wear resistant, heat-resistant properties of the mold, reduce fatigue cracks, reduce production costs of cleaning and damage, and improve mold quality and extend mold life (paragraph [0006]). A transition layer is first obtained on the mold base, and then a zirconium oxide + TiAlN layer, can be applied as an anti-adhesion layer at a thickness of 0.3 µm, by using physical vapor deposition (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Li to further include a zirconium oxide surface anti-adhesion layer as an outer layer, as Kong teaches a double-layer protective layer can greatly improve anti-stick, wear-resistance, and heat-resistance of the mold (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the zirconium oxide layer has a thickness from about 0.1 to 1 micron (Kong, paragraph [0044], zirconium oxide + TiAlN layer having a thickness of 0.3µm).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches a die-cast mold (fig 2, paragraph [0002]) comprising:
a die (fig 2, die casting mold substrate 1) having a mold surface (fig 2, paragraph [0031], see surface of substrate 1 on which coating is deposited);
a multilayer coating disposed over the mold surface (paragraph [0031-0032], figs 1-2, nano-ceramic coating 2), the multilayer coating including an adhesion layer (fig 1, paragraph [0032], transition layer 21) contacting the mold surface (fig 1-2, paragraph [0019], transition layer deposited on substrate) and a base layer (fig 1, paragraph [0032], functional layer 22) contacting the adhesion layer (fig 1-2, paragraph [0020], functional layer deposited on the transition layer); and
wherein the base layer is composed of a component selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxycarbide, zirconium aluminum nitride, and zirconium silicon carbonitride (paragraph [0024], functional layer is a multi-layer including nitrides or carbides or oxides or nitride carbides of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr, thus disclosing an embodiment of oxides and carbides of Zr, nitrides of Zr and Al, and carbides and nitrides of Zr and Si), and wherein the adhesion layer includes a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer (the transition layer is a simple substance or nitride or carbide or nitride carbide of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr, thus also encompasses Zr or Ti, note the example in paragraph [0032] where the transition layer may be Cr and CrN (thus Li at least encompasses Ti and TiN or Zr and ZrN as the transition layer)).
Li shows the die casting mold in figure 2 (appears to show a half), but is quiet to the die cast mold having a second die having a second mold surface, the first and second die mating to define a mold cavity, and that the second die includes the multilayer coatings.
However, use of two die halves is well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include a second die half, having the multilayer coating, so as to define the mold cavity for the die casting process described in Li. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Li teaches the adhesion layer is a simple substance or nitride or carbide or nitride carbide of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr (paragraph [0024]), with an example of the adhesion layer including Cr (paragraph [0032]), but is quiet as to whether the adhesion layer is a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer.
Qiao teaches a nano composite coating (paragraph [0002]) having broad application including molds (paragraph [0005]). Qiao teaches a Ti transition layer as an inner layer (paragraph [0009]) and a nanocomposite coating including TiN, TiAlN, and CrTiAlN arranged above as a surface layer (paragraph [0009]). The coatings are applied by magnetron sputtering which is a type of PVD process having high precision, smooth, and dense surface (paragraph [0025]), where a Ti target is turned on when preparing the TiN, a Ti target and Al target is turned on when preparing the TiAlN coating, and a Ti target, Al target, and Cr target are turned on when preparing the CrTiAlN coating (paragraph [0010]). Doing so reduces the excessive difference in thermal expansion coefficients generated when the nano multilayer coating is directly coated on the base material, thereby increasing the bonding strength (paragraph [0010]).
In light of the teachings of Qiao, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a transition layer of a metallic Zr in Li, when forming the outer multilayer coating of a ceramic Zr layer, as the Zr transition layer would provide a better transition for matching the differences in thermal expansion coefficients.
Li teaches that the functional layer is a multilayer and can include oxides of Zr (paragraph [0024], among other elements), but is quiet to the zirconium oxide layer disposed over the first and second base layers.
Kong teaches preparing a double-layer protective layer on the surface of die casting molds to greatly improve the anti-stick, wear resistant, heat-resistant properties of the mold, reduce fatigue cracks, reduce production costs of cleaning and damage, and improve mold quality and extend mold life (paragraph [0006]). A transition layer is first obtained on the mold base, and then a zirconium oxide + TiAlN layer, can be applied as an anti-adhesion layer at a thickness of 0.3 µm, by using physical vapor deposition (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Li to further include a zirconium oxide surface anti-adhesion layer as an outer layer, as Kong teaches a double-layer protective layer can greatly improve anti-stick, wear-resistance, and heat-resistance of the mold (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the first and second multilayer coatings are each formed by physical vapor deposition (Li, paragraph [0019-0020], PVD process, Kong teaches the Zirconium oxide is applied by PVD, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the multilayer coatings are formed sputtering (Li, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the first adhesion layer and the second adhesion layer are each independently a titanium layer or a zirconium layer (see rejection of claim 14 above, note that Li teaches the transition layer may be a simple substance including Ti or Zr, note example where transition layer is a metal Cr layer and a CrN layer deposited above and that Li teaches the use of other elements including Zr (would be obvious to use Zr transition layer when coating a Zr based functional layer)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Qiao and Kong as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Abusulik (WO 2016/027832 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, the combination is quiet to the zirconium oxide layer having a surface roughness that is less than 60 nm.
Abusulik teaches a coated mold for die casting having exceptional seizure resistance and erosion resistance (abstract), where the first and second hard coating have an arithmetic mean roughness of 0.05 µm or less (machine translation, p.2 lines 23-30, p.3 lines 19-26, falling within the claimed range). A roughness less than 0.05 µm improves the adhesion of the hard coating (p.3 lines 28-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the zirconium oxide coating to have a roughness less than is 0.05 µm, as Abusulik teaches the low roughness of a hard coating for a die casting mold improves the adhesion of the hard coating.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified by Qiao and Kong as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Inoue et al (US 2006/0032602, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the first and second zirconium oxide layer have a thickness from about 0.1 to 1 micron (Kong, paragraph [0044], 0.3 µm), but is quiet to the first and second base layer have a thickness from about 1 microns to 5 microns.
Inoue et al teaches a mold used for die casting (paragraph [0001]), including coating layers on its working plane (abstract), where a layer just above the base material is preferably 0.5 to 3.0 µm, and the outermost layer is preferably 0.5 to 5.0 µm (abstract), wherein the layers are deposited by physical vapor deposition (paragraph [0031]). When the thickness of the outermost layer is less than 0.5µm, the resistance to seizure and cracking cannot be obtained, whereas when the outermost layer is formed in a thickness of more than 5.0µm, it is early peeled depending on use conditions (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the thickness of the functional layer of the coating of Li, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a thickness that is too thin would not provide the resistance to seizure and cracking, and where a thickness too thick may lead to early peeling of the layer.
"[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). MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the claims have been amended so that the claim language is consistent with the “consisting of” aspect in the definition of “composed of.”
The examiner disagrees. Independent claims 1 and 14 do not use the “consisting of” language and thus do not exclude additional elements in the adhesion layer. Only dependent claim 23 does the adhesion layer “consist of” titanium or zirconium.
Applicant further notes that the claims have been amended to remove zirconium carbonitride as a choice for the first and second base layers, limiting the base layers to be a component selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxycarbide, zirconium aluminum nitride, and zirconium silicon carbonitride. Applicant argues that Li does not disclose a base layer limited to these ternary compounds or the adhesion layer being a titanium metal layer or a zirconium metal layer.
The examiner disagrees. Li teaches that the functional layer is a coating of a multi-layer, multi-element interlaced combination of nitrides, carbides, oxides, or nitride carbides of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, and Zr (paragraph [0039]). Thus, the materials of Li’s functional layer encompass the group of materials recited in the claim. Note that Zirconium oxycarbide is an oxide and carbide of Zr, Zirconium aluminum nitride is a nitride of Al and Zr, and zirconium silicon carbonitride is a carbonitride of Zr and Si. Although applicant argues that these compounds are ternary compounds not encompassed by Li’s binary or broad elemental compositions, the examiner disagrees. Li is not limited to binary compositions, and in an example of Li, Li’s functional layer is a TiAlCrWN layer (paragraph [0032-0033]). Although the example in Li does not include a compound of Zirconium, as noted above, Zr was described as a material of the combination. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). MPEP 2123(I).
Applicant further argues that although Li generically references simple substances, Li does not disclose an adhesion layer that consists of a titanium or zirconium metal layer.
The examiner disagrees. The “consist of” language is not used in the independent claims, and is only required in dependent claim 23. As noted in the rejections above, Li teaches that the transition layer may include coatings from simple substances, nitrides, carbides, carbonitrides of Ti, Si, W, Al, Cr, or Zr. In one example, Li teaches the transition layer is composed of a Cr layer and a CrN layer (paragraph [0032]), further described in paragraph [0037] as being formed by depositing a metal Cr layer of 200 nm, and then plating a 300 nm CrN layer on the metal Cr layer (paragraph [0037]). Thus, Li teaches an embodiment of the transition layer include a metal layer and a metal nitride layer, and with the list of metals above, may be Zr instead of Cr. This is further suggested in the combination with Qiao, as Qiao teaches a transition layer such as Ti as an inner layer and a composite coating of TiN, TiAlN, and CrTiAlN arranged above (paragraph [0009]), so as to reduce excessive differences in thermal expansion coefficients when a multilayer is coated directly on the base material, thereby increasing bonding strength (paragraph [0010]). The combination would suggest an inner layer of metal such as Zr as a transition into the functional layer that includes Zr. With regards to the phrase “consist of” in dependent claim 23, note that the metal layer of the transition layer can be construed as meeting the adhesion layer consists of zirconium, whereas the nitride layer of the transition layer and the functional layer can be construed as the claimed base layer contacting the adhesion layer.
With respect to claim 14, Applicant further argues that Kong teaches anti-adhesion layers, which are functionally opposite the claimed adhesion layers, and that the claimed invention does not use zirconium oxide.
The examiner disagrees. First, note that the claim does use zirconium oxide, see claim 14 line 5 and line 10. Applicant’s invention in claim 14 is directed to a multilayer coating over a mold surface, having as the inner most layer, an adhesion layer (titanium metal layer or zirconium metal layer), a base layer (zirconium oxycarbide, zirconium aluminum nitride, or zirconium silicon carbonitride), and then an outer zirconium oxide layer. Kong’s anti-adhesion layer corresponds to the claimed zirconium oxide layer, as Kong’s anti-adhesion layer is similarly the outermost layer (paragraph [0031], fig 1). This layer is not functionally opposite the claimed adhesion layers, as this is just a different layer. The claimed adhesion layer is the inner layer, that adheres the base layer to the mold surface. Kong’s anti-adhesion layer corresponds to the outermost zirconium oxide layer, and is for preventing sticking of the casting material to the mold, during production of cast parts. This is not a teaching away of the claim limitation of an adhesion layer, as the combination suggests a multilayer coating include an inner transition layer (Li), a functional layer (Li), and an outer zirconium oxide layer (Kong, anti-adhesion with a casting metal during casting).
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735