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 .
The amendment to the specification of March 27, 2026 has been received and entered. The amendment to the claims of December 5, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-15 are canceled, claims 25-29 and 35-39 are withdrawn, and claims 16-24 and 30-34 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-24 and 30-34, in the reply filed on April 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-29 and 35-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 9, 2025.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code is withdrawn due to the amendment of March 27, 2026 correcting this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 17-19, 22 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendments of December 5, 2025 clarifying the claim language.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 20-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102016101019 (hereinafter ‘019) in view of Dickey et al (US 2007/0224348) and as evidenced by Dugan et al (US 4994317), EITHER alone OR further in view of Dotter, II et al (US 6186090).
Claim 16, 20, 21: ‘019 teaches a method of processing a flexible substrate with a flux generator while being moved through an evacuable process area of a vacuum processing system that includes a plurality of guide rollers/pulleys (note figures 1A, 1B, for example, note pages 2, 8, translation). ‘019 describes processing including transporting a first layer of the flexible substrate in a first transport direction through a free region of the evacuable process area, and where with the use of various rollers, the substrate will be transported in a second opposite different direction in a free region of the evacuable process area (open region where other material not provided) with the layers of the substrate in each positioned at a distance from each other (note figures 1A, 1B, 3A, pages 8-9, translation). A usable flux (mass flow) of the flux generator (which can be a electron beam evaporator for vapor deposition, that is a thermal evaporator unit indicated by applicant as a processing instrument 11/flux generator, note page 35 of the specification as filed, and thus understood to meet the requirements of a flux generator) is simultaneously applied to the different layers of the substrate while these layers are transported in opposite directions through the free region to coat the substrate (note Figures 1A, 1B, pages 3, 8, translation). The flexible substrate can have a woven fabric/perforated form (note pages 4, 6, translation), and can be considered a construction material as used to form products (note page 8, translation). There can also be repeated coating steps to the substrate with both the first and second direction coating (note figure 4, page 9, translation).
(A) As to the specific matrix/lattice shaped substrate, with line and node shaped carrier elements, in the form of weft and warp threads (claims 20, 21), for example, as noted above, ‘019 indicates that substrate can be a woven fabric. Dugan evidences how woven fabric which can be coated would be conventionally formed of line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads (note figure 1, also showing what can be considered a matrix/lattice shape, column 2, lines 55-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 to specifically provide the flexible substrate in the form of a matrix/lattice shaped substrate with line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable woven fabric substrate, since ‘019 teaches using a woven fabric substrate and Dugan evidences how woven fabric which can be coated would be conventionally formed of line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads.
(B) Furthermore, as to further transporting at least one second layer of the flexible substrate parallel to and at a distance between 1 mm and 10 mm from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction, such that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the substrate while the layers are transported in opposite directions, in Figure 1A of ‘019 the layers are shown parallel in the horizontal plane at a distance from one another in different directions being simultaneously having flux applied, where it is indicated that when a fabric/perforated substrate the flux (coating material vapor) will pass through the perforations, so penetrate (note page 6, translation). The distance between layers is not taught however, or the option that the first and second layers are placed over each other. ‘019 also notes that there can be multiple coatings of the substrate in the first and second directions (note figure 4, page 9, translation).
However, Dickey describes a coating system for applying coating on a flexible substrate, where the substrate can be a woven material such as cloth (note 0007, 0008, 0053, figure 1). The process includes providing the substrate in a vacuum chamber where the substrate is transported back and forth, so that first the substrate is transported in a first transport direction and then transported in a second transport direction parallel to and at a distance from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite to the first direction through a free region in the evacuable process area (where this can be repeated giving stacks of layers) (note 0007, 0008, 0010, 0021, 0031, figure 1). It is indicted that the coating can provide filler to join and bind individual fibers of woven substrates (note 0058). The coating material is provided as precursor gases (note precursor 1 and 2) and fed into the evacuable process area to adsorb onto the surface, where by providing the layered back and forth substrates in the evacuable area, multiple layers are able to be simultaneously treated/penetrated at once with the material (note figure 1, 0008). As to the distance between substrates, it is noted that for example about 100 cycles/layers can be provided in a system of only 50 cm from the input roll 74 to the take up roll 86, giving about 5 mm between layers (note figure 1, 0033), where it is noted that passageways slightly greater than a width of the substrate can be used in the system with headroom in the range of microns to millimeters (note 0021-0022), indicating the distance between substrates can be adjusted and controlled. Dickey describes that to provide the back and forth movement of the substrate, the substrate is transported and guided around rollers and moves from roller to roller (note 64 and 66 to remove the movement direction of the substrate, note turning guides 64, 66 which can be rollers, pulleys, etc. 0030-0032, and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 as evidenced by Dugan to further provide further transporting at least one second layer of the flexible substrate parallel to and at a distance between 1 mm and 10 mm from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction, such that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the substrate while the layers are transported in opposite directions, and where the substrate is transported from roller to roller through a free region of the evacuable process area as suggested by Dickey with an expectation of providing desirable coating because (1) As to the structure of figure 1A of ‘019, for claim 1 the distance between the opposed films could be predictably and acceptably within about 5 mm, for example, since the system as discussed for Dickey above indicates that layers to be coated of moving substrate can be effectively about 5 mm apart where gases materials can still impact and coat, and by placing the substrate layers close together, space is not wasted and coating from the evaporator impacts more substrate, and alternatively (2), it would have been obvious to use a stacked set of back and forth layers as described by Dickey as discussed above, in the evacuable process area in the free region of ‘019 with an expectation of coating both the first and second layers with penetration simultaneously since Dickey indicates how multiple layers can be coated with gaseous material in such a format simultaneously which allows for desirable addition of layer thickness, and where the substrate can be transported from roller to roller and deflected over rollers to give the substrate transport and direction and ‘019 would note the penetration of coating material through the woven fabric substrate and that multiple coatings can occur, and the distance would predictably and acceptably be about 5 mm from the distance described by Dickey, or optimized to this distance from the suggestion to adjust.
(C) as to using the first, second, third, forth and fifth rollers as claimed,
(C1) Using ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan alone: when using the positioning of the first and second layers as shown in figures 1A or 3A of ‘019 (option (1) of part (B) above), ‘019 would indicate that to provide the desired transport, a first layer can be transported from a first roller to a second roller in a first transport direction through a free region in the evacuable process area, then the first layer can be deflected over a third roller and to a fourth roller to form the second layer of the substrate, and then the second layer transported parallel to the first layer from the fourth roller to a fifth roller in a transport direction opposite the first transport direction through the free region. Note as shown below for figure 3A of ‘019 (marked up by the Examiner), for example, how the substrate can be moved with what can be considered rollers (also as suggested by Dickey which describes how substrate movement can be by rollers, turning guides 0030). While ‘019 shows additional guide rollers other than ones that can be called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth rollers, this is not prevented by the present claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C2) Using ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan, further in view of Dotter: when using the positioning of the first and second layer as shown by Dickey (option (2) of part (B) above), Dotter teaches a vapor deposition system that deposits materials onto a flexible running substrate moving through a chamber 20 that can be used as part of a vacuum processing system, where the chamber 20 can be evacuated/provided with a vacuum (note column 7, lines 45-68, column 9, lines 30-45, column 11, lines 30-65, figure 2). Dotter teaches using guide rolls to move the substrate (note column 9, lines 30-45), where it is shown how rolls can be used to shape the direction and angle of movement of the substrate where as shown in figure 2 (noting the additional markings provided by the Examiner),
PNG
media_image2.png
526
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first layer of the substrate can be transported from a first roller to a second roller in a first transport direction through a free region of the chamber, then then the first layer of the substrate can be deflected over a third roller and to a fourth roller to form at least one second layer of the substrate, and where the second layer of the substrate can be transported parallel to the first layer of the substrate from the fourth roller to a fifth roller in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction through the free region (note the marked up figure 2 above, column 9, lines 30-40 and 60-65). As shown, the use of additional guide rollers other than the third roller for looping the substrate to move in the opposite direction allows for the parallel movement section to have a distance between the two substrates that is less than the third roller size (note the marked up figure 2 above). While Dotter shows additional guide rollers other than ones that can be called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth rollers, this is not prevented by the present claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 in view of Dickey as evidenced by Dugan to further provide transporting the first and second layers of the substrate using a turning system as shown by Dotter with more than one guide roll to perform the turning/deflecting of the first layer to form the second layer moving in the opposite direction, such that there would be a first layer transported from a first roller to a second roller in a first transport direction through a free region in the evacuable process area, then the first layer deflected over a third roller and to a fourth roller to form the second layer of the substrate, and then the second layer transported parallel to the first layer from the fourth roller to a firth roller in a transport direction opposite the first transport direction through the free region in order to provide a desirably controlled turning, since Dickey shows turning/deflecting around one layer, and Dotter shows conventional turning/deflecting can be provided with a roller system as claimed and as described by Dotter above, which allows deflecting to the position needed, including smaller than the size of the roller, and allowing for adjustable distance as indicted by Dickey.
Claim 22: The coating would be expected to provide enveloping coating as ‘019 indicates that the passage of the vapor coating material would coat the front and some back of the substrate, where this would occur while transporting the first layer in the first transport direction and the second layer in the second transport direction (note pages 6 and 8, translation, figure 1 of ‘019) and by further coating the other side, both areas would definitely be coated, and furthermore, Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can also fill voids (as filler) (note 0058).
Claim 23: as to growing a layer by flux propagation on at least one side of the flux generator in the direction of the flexible substrate, this would be indicated by ‘019, figure 1, where coating is provided by the vapor/flux propagation (note figure 1A, page 2, translation). As to this starting with the weft threads, this would be predictably acceptable, as the weft threads, as evidenced by Dugan can be exposed on the surface of the substrate to be coated (figure 1). Furthermore, as to the covering of voids, this would further have been predictably acceptable as evidenced by Dugan, which shows how coating can build up to cover voids (note figure 1).
Claim 24: as to the voids being filled by using the processing instrument having the usable flux, in cooperation with a second flux generator having a secondary flux, ‘019 further indicates that additional coating can be applied from a secondary vapor source (so second flux generator having a secondary flux, as an additional electron beam evaporator, for example) (note figure 5, pages 9-10, translation). Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can fill voids (as filler) (note 0058). Additionally, this would further have been predictably acceptable as evidenced by Dugan, which shows how coating can build up to cover voids (note figure 1).
Claim 30: further as to the distance of the first and second layers being 2.5 mm, given the suggestion as discussed for claim 16 that there can be adjustable distance, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance for the specific system used, giving a value of 2.5 mm. "[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).
Claims 17-19 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102016101019 (hereinafter ‘019) in view of Dickey et al (US 2007/0224348) and Dotter, II et al (US 6186090) and as evidenced by Dugan et al (US 4994317).
Claim 17, 18, 19, 32, 33: ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan, EITHER alone OR further in view of Dotter provide the processing a flexible substrate with a flux generator while being moved through an evacuable process area of a vacuum processing system, where the flexible substrate is a flexible matrix/lattice shaped material as discussed for claim 16 above, and note the specific use of ‘019 in view of Dickey and Dotter and as evidenced by Dugan. Furthermore, as to adjusting the process of ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan to also provide transporting a first layer of the substrate in a first transport direction through a first free region, and subsequently in a third transport direction different from the first direction through a second free region, and deflecting and transporting a second layer of the substrate parallel to the first layer in a fourth transport direction opposite the third direction through the second free region and subsequently in a second transport direction opposite to the first transport direction through the first free region in the evacuable process area and where a usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layers while these layers are transported in opposite directions through the first and/or second free regions, and for claim 18, the deflection occurs several times giving at least 4 layers, and distance between the layers of 1-10 mm through the free regions, and for claim 19, the angle between the first and third transport direction and second and fourth transport directions is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees, ‘019 also notes that there can be different directions of transport of the webs in different first and second free regions to be exposed to the flux (at angles greater than 0 and less than 180 degrees) (note figure 1B), and there can be multiple passes at these different directions (note figure 5).
Dickey indicates that when providing the stacked back and forth transport directions of the substrates could also be wound in a path that looks like a zig-zag or sine wave as long as the sequential path followed (note 0041) and a transit path of the substrate 12 through the precursor zones (where gas provided, free zones) can be curved or straight (note 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan to also optimize the flow direction of the substrates through regions, including having first and second free regions where flux/coating applied such that there is an angle deflection (of greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees) of the first transport path giving a first direction and angled away third direction, and then providing the return back direction of the substrate in parallel to these directions giving the fourth and second directions that are opposite as claimed and providing the flux during transport through the free regions to predictably and acceptably allow for further application of coating given the adjustability indicated by ‘019 and Dickey as discussed above and one would optimize for the specific best design for the system used. Furthermore, as to providing multiple deflections and at least 4 layers, this would be further suggested as predictably acceptable by Dickey which allows for more than 4 layers (figure 1), and the distance between would be about 5 mm, for example, as discussed for claim 16 above, given the multiple for this described by Dickey or alternatively would be optimized to the claimed distance. Claims 32, 33 would be suggested as discussed for claims 20 and 21 above.
Additionally, as to specifically providing that the transport pattern include that the first layer of the substrate transported from a first roller to a second roller through a first free region in a first transport direction, the first layer deflected over the second roller, the first layer transported to a third roller in a third transport direction different from the first transport direction, the first layer deflected over the third roller and a fourth roller to form a second layer, transporting the second layer parallel to the first layer from the fourth roller to the fifth roller in a fourth transport direction opposite the third transport direction through the second free region, deflecting the second layer of the substrate over the fifth roller, over the sixth roller, and over the seventh roller, and transporting the second layer from the seventh roller to the eight roller in a second transport direction through the first free region, as discussed above the pattern of flow of the first and second layers of the substrate would be suggested, and the use of guide rollers for moving the substrate in the desired pattern of flow would be indicated by ‘019 (note figures 1, 2, 3, 5, etc.) and Dickey (note figure 1), and further Dotter as shown above in the rejection of claim 16 would indicate how a variety of guide rollers can be used, where the figure shows how different placement of guide rollers would result in a different angle of direction of substrate, and thus it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as claimed to modify ‘019 in view of Dickey and Dotter and further as evidenced by Dugan to specifically optimize the number and placement of the guide rolls to give the desired flow pattern noted above, and this would result in using at least the first through eighth rollers in the positioning claimed to get the flow pattern claimed.
Claim 31: further as to the distance of layers being 2.5 mm, given the suggestion as discussed for claim 16 that there can be adjustable distance, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance for the specific system used, giving a value of 2.5 mm. "[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).
Claim 34: The coating would be expected to provide enveloping coating as ‘019 indicates that the passage of the vapor coating material would coat the front and some back of the substrate, where this would occur while transporting the first layer in the first transport direction and the second layer in the second transport direction (note pages 6 and 8, translation, figure 1 of ‘019) and by further coating the other side, both areas would definitely be coated, and furthermore, Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can also fill voids (as filler) (note 0058).
Stockhausen (US 2004/0214124) also notes the back and forth substrate movement during gas treatment (note figure 1, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the additional new reference to Dotter provided due to the amendment to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, as to independent claim 16, (1) it is argued that ‘019/Deus does not provide the first to fifth roller use as claimed, and (2) it is further argued Dickey also does not provide the claimed first to fifth roller use as claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, and (1) as to ‘019 not teaching the first to fifth roller use as claimed, it is the Examiners position that for option (1) of the rejection of claim 16, that ‘019 would suggest the placement/use of first to fifth rollers as claimed, note the discussion in the rejection above as to how rollers described by ‘019 would provide the placement/use as claimed. (2) Secondly, as to option (2) of the rejection of claim 16, as to the suggested format of Dickey of stacked layers, as discussed in the rejection above, Dickey does not provide the specific roller placement, however, the new cited reference to Dotter would suggest this placement when providing the stacked layers. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, as to independent claim 17, (1) it is argued that ‘019/Deus does not provide the first to eighth roller use as claimed, and (2) it is further argued Dickey also does not provide the claimed first to eighth roller use as claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, and it is the Examiners position that as discussed in the rejections above ‘019 in view of Dickey would suggest the pattern of directions of the first and second layers, etc. as claimed, and with the positioning adjustment described by Dickey and the use of guide rollers as shown by Dotter, it would be suggested to optimize the number, placement, positioning of guide rollers to provide the pattern of directions suggested and as claimed, and this wold result in using the first through eighth rollers as claimed. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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 at 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights