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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/17/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendments to claims. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-28, 30 and 32-47 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that the prior art rejection fails to include any reference to the term modifying as required by the claims, the examiner notes the breadth of the term modifying would be encompassed by the prior art rejection of record, as the forming of the subsurface region would including a modifying the preexisting implant as specifically claimed.
Applicant’s argue that the Burns reference condenses on the substrate to grow a deposited film by PVD and then IBAD is used to affect the properties of the deposited film, Therefore Applicant’s argue that Burns does not disclose a process that affects the structure of the implant body underneath the outer surface of the preexisting implant body. Here, the examiner disagrees with this narrow reading of the prior art reference. Specifically, the reference discloses PVD “in the presence” of an accelerated ion beam (IBAD), and therefore the ion beam is used to assist the deposition, not a post treatment process. The examiner additionally notes the Burns reference, when describing the process of IBAD and its deposition mechanism, discloses “The sputtering and re-deposition process may also create an intermixed zone of the substrate and coating atoms. Such an intermixed zone may improve film adhesion by eliminating and/or reducing the formation of interfacial voids.” (0033). The examiner can not locate any evidence that the IBAD is used after PVD deposition to modify the properties of the deposited film, as the reference discloses the PVD and IBAD is concurrent (0032-0033) and form an intermixed zone to improve adhesion.
Here the Burns reference discloses that the IBAD process results in an intermixed zone of the coating atoms and the substrate to improve adhesion and this intermixed zone is related to the “coating atoms” and not limited to the titanium as arguments (as the preceding paragraph discloses the IBAD process includes the vapor flux and ion beam). Burns further deposits the Ag doped Ti/TiO film by an IBAD process and forming a ceramic during the process (0041-0042). Therefore, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness that an intermixed region exists that includes the coating material (ceramic) and the base material (Ti).
With respect to Burns, Applicant argues that the prior art’s elimination and/or reducing the formation of interfacial voids is being on the surface and not the same as being embedded underneath the outermost surface as recited in the claims. Applicant proffered a graphic illustration and argued that the Burns reference only discloses intermixing to fill interfacial voids and not that the molecules are underneath an outermost surface. The Applicant’s fail to provide factual evidence to support their position and merely make assertions that are unsupported by the record. Initially, the disclosure of the interfacial voids appears to be in relation to the sputtering and redeposition of the coating material that is loosely bound to the surface to increase the film density of the growing film. Even taking the Applicant’s diagram as factual, which the examiner cannot agree, the outermost surface of the orthopedic implant encompasses the substrate material within the intermixed region.
PNG
media_image1.png
185
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, the applicant has fails to appreciate the Burns discloses the sputtering of the substrate atoms and redeposition via the IBAD process so that “an intermixed zone of the substrate and coating atoms” and therefore would include the sputtering of the substrate atoms (i.e. the outermost) and redeposition within the coating material to form the intermixed embedded within and underneath the substrate surface (i.e. where the sputtering atoms used to be) to create an increased adhesion.
Applicant argues that Burns discloses a film on the surface and any intermixed zone is clearly that the atoms are on the surface and not underneath the outer surface of the preexisting body. Here, this is unclear as the intermixed zone would include substrate material that would be below the surface as specifically claimed. The mere fact that the ceramic layer is also grown on the surface is not dispositive as the claims do not limit the claim to only a subsurface mixed region (i.e. comprising language). As such, the claims as broadly drafted merely require some degree of subsurface region, and such would be met by Burns intermixed zone. It is unclear to the examiner how the substrate can be intermixed with the ceramic material by IBAD but such intermixing will only be on the surface, if substrate material is sputtering and redepositing to form a intermixed region, such would necessarily be below the original surface. The Applicant’s have not provided any reasoning how the substrate and ceramic can be intermixed but only on the surface of the original substrate (i.e. if the substrate atoms are displaced at the surface with ceramic, such would read on the claims ceramic enriched surface). Applicant is request to establish how the outer surface of the substrate can remain but be sputtered and intermixed with the ceramic materials. Regardless, the USPP 683 discloses makes obvious using ion beam enhanced deposition (IBED) process, “a ceramic material is first alloyed into and below the original surfaces” and “the presence of ceramic material in the sub-surface alloyed case layers” provide certain benefits including “producing bonding zones” and no distinct interface and thus less likely to delaminate from the surfaces (0031).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Burns deposited layer of Ti is formed on the substrate and thus the anti-bacterial layer is not on the surface of the implant. Initially, the outer surface of the implant is not defined to be any more than an outer surface (which can include the homo-metallic layer). Additionally, the homo-metallic layer is an optional layer that may be deposited for adhesion, but the claims do not define the substrate to be devoid of additional layers and therefore the presence or absence of the Ti homo-metallic layer is not commensurate in scope with the claims as drafted. Specifically, the IBAD process creates an intermixed zone as set forth below between the substrate and coating material, which include the ceramic (see 0038-0044). Here the applicant's appear to be confusing the adhesion layer Ti deposited at 0044 (an optional layer that is not required) with the IBAD ceramic layer (0041- 0042).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Sioshansi reference are noted, but unpersuasive as the reference is utilized for a showing of known and suitable substrate temperatures for IBAD onto implants.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Bricault reference are noted. Applicant’s argue that the atoms are deposited on the catheters and the ion source accelerates ions into the growing film as part of the IBAD process. Applicant argues that Bricault discloses the IBAD process and argues that the surface 216 is the tissue interfacing surface and is thus the the top surface or outermost surface which is the film deposited thereon and not the implant material itself. The examiner does not agree with this interpretation as Bricault discloses “the atoms 212 are embedded in the material of the catheter and the atomic penetration extends below the surface 216” and thus clearly disclose the embedding into the implant material. The explicit words of this requirement illustrates that subsurface region “below the surface”. The applicants position that this is the coating material and not the implant is clearly misplaced as the reference explicitly discloses the coating material is embedded into the material of the implant. The examiner can not agree that the applicant’s interpretation, which appears to be against the explicit words of the reference, is persuasive.
To further rebut the applicant’s argument, the examiner notes Bricault discloses IBAD deposition is employed, it is preferable for the atoms to extend about 0.01 micrometers to about 0.05 micrometers and such a penetration will provide a firmly anchored film that is non-leaching (see column 6, lines 5-27).
US Patent 5055318, hereinafter US 318 discloses coating material by using ion beam including nitrogen ions and evaporated silicon (example 4) and discloses ballistically alloying the coating using ion beam concurrently with the PVD layer (high energy beam strikes the substrate concurrently with the initial deposition of sputtered” and bombards the substrate surface until a ballistically alloyed layer formed. US 318 discloses the ballistically alloying is physically mixed within the substrate surface . . . extends into the substrate surface a short distance.
USPP 683 discloses orthopedic implants coated by IBED, including various ceramic materials and various orthopedic implants (0024-0025) at a temperature of less than 600 F, which overlaps the claimed range. USPP 683 discloses implants consisting of a bulk material with original surfaces, see Figure 3 and accompanying text. USPP 683 discloses using ion beam enhanced deposition (IBED) process, “a ceramic material is first alloyed into and below the original surfaces” and “the presence of ceramic material in the sub-surface alloyed case layers” provide certain benefits including “producing bonding zones” and no distinct interface and thus less likely to delaminate from the surfaces (0031). Annotated Figure 3 included herein.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
1109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of USPP 683 supports and illustrates the function of the IBED process and the obviousness of embedding and creating a subsurface ceramic region using IBED to reap the benefits as specifically disclosed by USPP 683. Applicant’s arguments that the combination does not make any sense, since there is no analysis in the office action how these features will be combined. Here, both Burns and USPP 683 discloses IBAD to promote adhesion, USPP 683 discloses using embedding and creating a subsurface ceramic region using IBED. The examiner has proffered significant analysis, and substantial evidence that IBAD will provide the claimed subsurface intermixed region and the Applicant’s mere statements to the contrary do not rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The applicant’s have not provided any factual evidence to rebut the examiner position, merely arguing spurious arguments that are not supported by facts. The collection of references would suggest the presence of a subsurface region/intermixed zone that is below the outer surface of the implant as a direct result of the IBAD process and one would specifically desire to include that intermixed region to provide adhesion of the deposition.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Duetchman 1 and Burns or McEntire are noted, but not persuasive for all the reasons set forth above with respect to the drafted claims and the scope of the claim limitations.
The argument against a single reference appears misplace as the rejection is based on a combination of reference. USPP 512 coats an implant with IBAD and US 797 discloses the IBAD process and the particulars of such for formation of a layer onto the implant. While the references do not disclose the presence or absence of an intermixed zone, the examiner notes that Bricault discloses that the IBAD process including an ion source to accelerate the PVD film and discloses that the collisions mix the film atoms with the substrate atoms to cause the film atoms to become embedded within the interfacing surface (column 3, lines 30-50, column 5, lines 30-45, column 7, lines 35-50) and therefore the use of IBAD will include the formation the integrated ceramic surface layer and the base material cooperate to sandwich the intermix layer in between as instantly claimed. In other words, the examiner has offered that the using IBAD (as specifically disclosed by both USPP 512 and US 797), as evidenced by Bricault, would have resulted in an intermixed zone because Bricault discloses that the ion source to accelerate the PVD film and discloses that the collisions mix the film atoms with the substrate atoms to cause the film atoms to become embedded within the interfacing surface (column 3, lines 30-50, column 5, lines 30-45, column 7, lines 35-50). The applicant argues that the reference is completely silent with respect the to driving ceramic molecules into the outer surface of the implant; however, the reference suggests that this would flow from using IBAD. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The claimed IBAD parameters are well known (as taught by US 797) and thus the applicants have not provided any rebuttal evidence that the results as claimed are unexpected or unpredictable.
Here, the applicant’s own specification appears to support the examiner’s position that the intermix zone will naturally flow from the process steps taken and the prior art discloses and/or makes obvious the claimed process steps. Specifically, 0005 discloses “Ion beam enhanced deposition (IBED), also known as ion beam assisted deposition (IBAD), is a process by which accelerated ions drive a vapor phase coating material into the subsurface of a substrate.”
Applicant’s mere statements to the contrary do not provide factual evidence to rebut the evidence that supports the prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner has presented significant evidence that the IBAD/IBED with an ion beam assisted PVD deposition would form ceramic molecules and drive those molecules using the ion beam into the and underneath the outer surface of the orthopedic implant and the subsurface of the implant would be modified by creating an intermix region/atomically integration between the implant material and ceramic molecules deposited (see various citations above) and one would desire to provide this intermixed region to reap the benefits of e.g. adhesion among others. This would lead to an enhanced implant with a intermixed region that is a ceramic enriched region underneath the outer surface of the region such that the region include the intermix region/atomically integration.
All other arguments not specifically addressed herein are deemed mere attorney speculation not supported by factual evidence or are deemed not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 17-19, 22-31, 34-35, 39, 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over US Patent Application Publication 20170157289 by Burns with US 5474797 by Sioshansi et al, hereinafter US 797 taken further with US Patent Application Publication 20080221683, hereinafter USPP 683.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference the above Response to Arguments Section as it relates to these cited references.
Claim 1: Burns discloses a process for producing an enhanced orthopedic implant having an integrated ceramic surface layer (abstract, Figure 5C), comprising the steps of: positioning the orthopedic implant inside a vacuum chamber, having a implant body defined by an outer surface thereof; vaporizing at least two different metalloid or transition metal atoms inside the vacuum chamber (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0035); emitting a relatively high energy beam comprising an energy level between 0.1-100 kiloelectron volts (KeV), discloses a range the is within this range and thus makes obvious such, into the at least two different metalloid or transition metal atoms inside the vacuum chamber to cause a collision to form ceramic molecules (Figure 3 and accompanying text, Figure 5 and accompanying text, see 0034-0035); driving the ceramic molecules with the same beam into and underneath an outer surface of the orthopedic implant at a relatively high energy such that the ceramic molecules implant therein and form at least a part of the molecular structure of the outer surface of the orthopedic implant simultaneously, thereby forming the integrated ceramic surface layer; and modifying the preexisting implant body to form the subsurface region by forming the intermix layer including a mixture of subsurface level ceramic molecules and a base material of the orthopedic implant which will read on atomically integrated and such will be enhanced related to no coating (Figure 5A-5C and accompanying text, 0032-0033 related to intermixed zone).
Burns discloses coevaporating Ti and Ag and depositing using IBAD including an ion beam of oxygen or nitrogen gases (0035, 0037) and a full review of the specification illustrates that such will result in the applicant’s claimed ceramic molecules comprising at least Ti and Ag as claimed and therefore the prior art must necessarily have the same results because the collection of prior art makes obvious each and every process step that the applicant’s disclose as being required to achieve the claimed results.
Burns discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the temperature of the implant. However, US 797 also in the art of IBAD of an antibacterial coating onto an implant discloses maintaining the substrate surface below 200C (column 3, lines 60-65) and therefore such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
USPP 683 discloses orthopedic implants coated by IBED, including various ceramic materials and various orthopedic implants (0024-0025) at a temperature of less than 600 F, which overlaps the claimed range. USPP 683 discloses implants consisting of a bulk material with original surfaces, see Figure 3 and accompanying text. USPP 683 discloses using ion beam enhanced deposition (IBED) process, “a ceramic material is first alloyed into and below the original surfaces” and “the presence of ceramic material in the sub-surface alloyed case layers” provide certain benefits including “producing bonding zones” and no distinct interface and thus less likely to delaminate from the surfaces (0031). Annotated Figure 3 included herein.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
1109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of USPP 683 supports and illustrates the function of the IBED process and the obviousness of embedding and creating a subsurface ceramic region using IBED to reap the benefits as specifically disclosed by USPP 683.
While the references fail to explicitly disclose “intermixed with and atomically integrated”, as noted above the prior art discloses intermixed region using ion beam assistance and a fair reading of the specification illustrates that atomic integration is a direct result of the ion beam assisted deposition (at least in part, to the high strength of the alloy bond formed at an atomic level by the ion bombardment, which creates the intermixed layer 44 between the ceramic layer 26 and the surface molecules 46 of the orthopedic implant workpiece, see 0036) and therefore by using ion beam bombardment, the prior art will necessarily have the same results, that is some degree of atomically integration will occur as a result of the intermixing region created per the prior art IBAD process.
Claim 2: Burns discloses beam comprises an ion beam comprising nitrogen ions selected from the group consisting of N+ ions and N.sub.2+ ions. (see 0037).
Claim 4: Burns discloses step of cleaning the outer surface of the orthopedic implant with the beam at an energy level between about 1-1000 electron volts (0033).
Claim 5: Burns discloses the position steps includes moving the platen into the chamber (0036).
Claim 6: Burns discloses Ti and Ag ingots (0035).
Claim 7: Burns discloses propagating the beam (figure 3)
Claim 8: Burns discloses adjusting the energy or density (0037).
Claim 9: Burns would encompass what can reasonably be considered “backfilling” the chamber (Figure 3 and accompanying text).
Claim 10: Surface comprises the ceramic molecules (see Burns at Figure 5C).
Claims 11-12: Burns discloses less than the entire surface and a uniform thickness (Figure 9 and accompanying text).
Claim 14: Burns discloses Ti and Ag as claimed (0035).
Claim 17: Burns discloses titanium (0026).
Claims 18-19, 22-31, 34-35 and 39: These claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 46: Burns discloses the base material comprises a non-polymeric material (see 0026).
Claim 47: US 797 also in the art of IBAD of an antibacterial coating onto an implant discloses maintaining the substrate surface below 200C (column 3, lines 60-65) and therefore such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1-9, 11, 13-28, 30 and 32-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 20130302512 by McEntire et al. (hereinafter USPP 512) taken with US 797 and US Patent 5055318 by Deutchman et al. (hereinafter US 318) as evidenced by or further in view of US 5520664 by Bricault et al. or USPP 683.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference the above Response to Arguments Section as it relates to these cited references.
Claim 1: USPP 512 discloses a process for producing an orthopedic implant having an integrated ceramic surface layer (0099), comprising the steps of: positioning the orthopedic implant inside a vacuum chamber; vaporizing at least two different metalloid or transition metal atoms inside the vacuum chamber (0099, 107-110). US 512 discloses the integrated layer substantially comprises the ceramic (see e.g. SiN at 0107). US 512 discloses the codeposition of Ag and Si using nitrogen ion assistance and a full review of the specification illustrates that such will result in the applicant’s claimed ceramic comprising two different metalloid or transition metal atoms (Si and Ag) and therefore the prior art must necessarily have the same results because the collection of prior art makes obvious each and every process step that the applicant’s disclose as being required to achieve the claimed results.
USPP discloses codeposition of SiN and Ag as the antibacterial coating onto the implant surface (0050 related to various implant materials) and discloses performing such by known techniques include IBAD (0110); however, fails to disclose the particulars of the IBAD process.
However, US 797, also in the art of deposition an antibacterial coating onto the surface of a medical implant using an IBAD process (column 2, lines 30-50). US 797 discloses the IBAD process includes emitting a relatively high energy beam comprising an energy level, e.g. 5 or 10 keV (examples) or 0.2 to 20kev (column 3,line 60-65), which makes obvious the claimed range of 0.1-100 kiloelectron volts (keV), into the at least evaporants (see “one or more”) inside the vacuum chamber to cause a collision.
US 797 discloses the implant simultaneously while maintaining the outer surface of the orthopedic implant at a temperature below 200C (column 3, lines 60-65)
As for the claimed ranges, the examiner notes the prior art discloses a temperature and energy within the claimed range and thus makes obvious the claim as drafted.
USPP 512 with US 797 discloses IBAD of an implant for coating and discloses antibacterial coatings including IBAD codeposition of Silver and SiN; however, fails to explicitly disclose the evaporation of a metalloid (i.e. Si) atoms and silver to form the IBED embedded ceramic. However, US 318, also discloses an IBED imbedded layer discloses using the Si target and N ions to form the SiN layer (Example 4) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified USPP 512 with US 797 which discloses evaporating the precursor and using IBED for alloying to use the Si target that is known to be used for the SiN IBED layer.
As for the requirement of driving the ceramic molecule into the outer surface of the implant to form underneath the outer surface and modifying the preexisting body, the prior art discloses IBAD for the formation of the antibacterial coating that is well adhered; however, fails to disclose the intermixed layer. However, Bricault discloses that the IBAD process including an ion source to accelerate the PVD film and discloses that the collisions mix the film atoms with the substrate atoms to cause the film atoms to become embedded within the interfacing surface (column 3, lines 30-50, column 5, lines 30-45, column 7, lines 35-50) and therefore the use of IBAD will include the formation the integrated ceramic surface layer and the base material cooperate to sandwich the intermix layer in between as instantly claimed.
Additionally, Bricault disclose the benefits of IBAD to form the intermixed zone (i.e. surface layer, intermixed layer, and base, with intermixed layer formed on a subsurface level film atoms mixed with the base material of the implant) provides the benefits of nonleaching surface, ensures proper adhesion, and ensures that the layer benefits (i.e. antibacterial or antimicrobial) properties persist into the subsurface stratum thereby providing long lasting effects (column 10, lines 14-20) and therefore taking the references collectively, at the very least, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified USPP512, US 797 and US 318 to provide the intermixed layer as suggested by Bricault to reap the benefits as specifically articulated therein, i.e. adhesion of layer and properties persist int a subsurface stratum thereby providing long lasting effect.
Alternatively, USPP 683 discloses orthopedic implants coated by IBED, including various ceramic materials and various orthopedic implants (0024-0025) at a temperature of less than 600 F, which overlaps the claimed range. USPP 683 discloses implants consisting of a bulk material with original surfaces, see Figure 3 and accompanying text. USPP 683 discloses using ion beam enhanced deposition (IBED) process, “a ceramic material is first alloyed into and below the original surfaces” and “the presence of ceramic material in the sub-surface alloyed case layers” provide certain benefits including “producing bonding zones” and no distinct interface and thus less likely to delaminate from the surfaces (0031). Annotated Figure 3 included herein.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
1109
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure of USPP 683 supports and illustrates the function of the IBED process and the obviousness of embedding and creating a subsurface ceramic region using IBED to reap the benefits as specifically disclosed by USPP 683. Both USPP 683 and Bricault would result in intermixed with and atomically integrated into the implant body under neath the outer surface as claimed (see e.g. annotated figure above).
While the references fail to explicitly disclose “intermixed with and atomically integrated”, as noted above the prior art discloses intermixed region using ion beam assistance and a fair reading of the specification illustrates that atomic integration is a direct result of the ion beam assisted deposition (at least in part, to the high strength of the alloy bond formed at an atomic level by the ion bombardment, which creates the intermixed layer 44 between the ceramic layer 26 and the surface molecules 46 of the orthopedic implant workpiece, see 0036) and therefore by using ion beam bombardment, the prior art will necessarily have the same results, that is some degree of atomically integration will occur as a result of the intermixing region created per the prior art IBAD process.
Claim 2: USPP 318 discloses ions are selected from the group consisting of nitrogen ions which can reasonably be considered to include N+ ions or N2+ ions (see Example 4), i.e. prior art discloses nitrogen ion beam, as does the instant application and thus the prior art must have the same results unless the applicant is performing different process steps that are not disclosed or claimed as being required to achieve the results.
Claim 3: USPP 318 fails to disclose the amount of nitrogen to the amount of vaporized metal/metalloid; however, the amount of nitrogen ions is a result effective variable, directly affecting the deposited layer composition (i.e. not enough Nitrogen and insufficient reaction) and therefore determining the amount would have been obvious through routine experimentation.
Claim 4: USPP 318 discloses the step of cleaning the outer surface of the substrate with the ion beam at an energy level at 1000 electron volts and therefore makes obvious the claimed range and precleaning as claimed (see Example 4).
Claim 5: US 797 discloses positioning step includes the step of mounting the orthopedic implant to a selectively movable platen for repositioning an orientation of the orthopedic implant relative to the ion beam (Column 5, lines 40-45). See also US 318.
Claim 6: US 512 discloses depositing silver and silicon nitride simultaneously via PVD techniques, including IBAD and US 797 discloses IBAD discloses vaporizing using an evaporator (column 5, lines 26-45) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to evaporate using multiple ingots to achieve the vapor deposition of multiple materials.
Claim 7: US 797 discloses a step of propagating the ion beam (figure 2 and accompanying text), see beam propagating from ion source at Figure 2.
Claim 8: US 318 which discloses controlling the energy and deposition rates (column 6,lines 8-15) and therefore it would have been obvious as predictable to adjust the energy and deposition rate to control the film formation process.
Claim 9: US 318 would encompass what can reasonably be considered “backfilling” the chamber (see US 318 at Figure and accompanying text).
Claim 11: USPP 512 discloses the driving comprises the integrated surface layer to less than the entire outer surface (i.e. see Figure 4A and accompanying text, i.e. portion of implant coated).
Claim 13-16: US 512 discloses codepositing vapors for the formation of Ag and SiN using IBAD and therefore would reasonably read on these claims as broadly drafted. At the very least, the references suggest the codeposition of Ag and Si using nitrogen ion assistance and a full review of the specification illustrates that such will result in the applicant’s claimed SiNAg and therefore the prior art must necessarily have the same results because the collection of prior art makes obvious each and every process step that the applicant’s disclose as being required to achieve the claimed results.
Claim 17: US 512 discloses the base can be any number of materials, including medical grade titanium.
Claim 18-34: Each of the limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and therefore these claims are taught/made obvious by the collection of prior art cited above and for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 35-45: Each of the limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and therefore these claims are taught/made obvious by the collection of prior art cited above and for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 46: US 512 discloses the base can be any number of materials, including medical grade titanium.
Claim 47: US 797 also in the art of IBAD of an antibacterial coating onto an implant discloses maintaining the substrate surface below 200C (column 3, lines 60-65) and therefore such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3, 20 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPP512, US 797 and US 318 as evidenced or further with Bricault or USPP 683 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20040115343 by Carcia et al.
While the examiner maintains the position above, the examiner cites here Carcia, which also discloses ion beam deposition of SiN and disclose adjusting the ratio of Si and N ions to reap the benefits to control the amount of Si and N in the film (0029) and thus it would have been obvious to control the ratio through routine experimentation to achieve the desired film stoichiometry.
Claim 6, 25, and 35-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPP512, US 797 and US 318 as evidenced or further with Bricault or USPP 683 and further with Burns
While the examiner maintains the position above, the examiner cites here Burns, also in the art of the formation of the antibacterial film via ion assisted PVD (IBAD, see 0032, 0033) by codepositing multiple coating materials on the substrate surface (abstract, figure 4), including a first and second material. Burns discloses using a similar IBAD arrangement of ion beam, evaporator, medical device (see Figure 3). Burns discloses placing the multiple separate ingots into the evaporator so as to evaporate individual ingots (0035) to deposit the materials concurrently. As USPP 512 desires for codeposition of materials via PVD or IBAD, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art at the art at the time of the invention to have modified USPP512, US 797 and US 318 as evidenced or further with Bricault or USPP 683 to use multiple ingots of materials for IBAD codeposition as such is taught by Burns as a method for codeposition in antibacterial film formation.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights