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 .
The amendment filed 6/30/25 has been considered and entered. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain in the application with claims 15-20 having been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14 remain active in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 6/30/25, the 35 USC 102 rejection has been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sun et al. (2013/0288037) (a) alone or (b) in combination with Xu et al. (9,469,918).
Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches a plasma spray coating process and enhancement for critical chamber components. Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches ceramic coatings to include SiC and ceramic coating materials including YAG, YAM, YSZ and combinations thereof [0038]. The substrate includes metals, ceramics and metal alloys [0044]. Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches the parameters of the plasma spray coating to include plasma power of 90kW, gas flow rate of 120-130L/min, powder feed rate of 10g/min, distance of nozzle to substrate of 100 mm and gun current of 150A [0053]. Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches the coating can be stripped from the substrate without affecting the dimensions of the substrate that are coated [0040] this would meet the claimed “obtain the bulk silicon carbide part”.
Sun et al. (2013/0288037) fails to specifically teach the claimed the at least 5mm thickness.
(a)Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches thicknesses of 10-40 mils which is about 1mm and teaches multiple passes of about 30-45 passes which would equate to 4.5mm (100 um x 45 passes) which is less than the claimed greater than 5mm (as argued by Applicant).
The Examiner takes the position that the thickness is a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art and hence would be within the skill of one practicing in the art to suggest enough passes to produce the claimed greater than 5mm thickness as desired absent a showing of criticality thereof the claimed thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
(b) Xu et al. (9,469,918) teaches forming a diamond layer including SiC by spray plasma (col. 4, lines 39-45) whereby the coating can be separated from the substrate to form a free-standing film (claimed bulk part) (col. 3, lines 19-22) having a thin or thick coating thickness whereby the thick film coating thickness of 5 mm (col. 8, lines 59-67).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified Sun et al. (2013/0288037) process to form a film thickness of 5mm as evidenced by Xu et al. (9,469,918) with the expectation of producing free-standing films by spray plasma and separating from a substrate.
Regarding claims 2-3, Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches silicon carbide and one or more ceramics, and the ceramics would meet the claimed dopants.
Regarding claim 4-6,10-12, Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches the claimed dopants such as YAG, YAM, YSZ, etc. as well as one or more metals (Al, Nd, Zr, Si, Er, etc.) [00[0038],[0046,[0049].
Regarding claims 8-9, the coating would include both SiC and one or more ceramic dopants.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sun et al. (2013/0288037) (a) alone or (b) in combination with Xu et al. (9,469,918) (a) or (b) further in combination with Mubarok et al. “Suspension Plasma Spraying of sub-micron Silicon Carbide composite coatings”.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Sun et al. (2013/0288037) (a) alone or (b) in combination with Xu et al. (9,469,918) are incorporated here.
Sun et al. (2013/0288037) (a) alone or (b) in combination with Xu et al. (9,469,918) fails to teach the claimed dopants being ceramics and the materials of the ceramics including the metals recited.
Mubarok et al. “Suspension Plasma Spraying of sub-micron Silicon Carbide composite coatings” teaches thermal spraying of silicon carbide materials whereby ceramics and metal binders (claimed dopants) are necessary to facilitate the bonding of the SiC particles allowing formation of SiC composite coatings to be formed (abstract). Mubarok et al. “Suspension Plasma Spraying of sub-micron Silicon Carbide composite coatings” teaches a ceramic oxide binder of YAG prepared from Al(NO3)-9H2O and Y(NO3)3-6H2O (p. 818). Mubarok et al. “Suspension Plasma Spraying of sub-micron Silicon Carbide composite coatings” teaches the metal salt precursor in the amount of 30 wt% oxide binder which would leave 70 wt% for the SiC (p. 818).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun et al. (2013/0288037) (a) alone or (b) in combination with Xu et al. (9,469,918) process to include ceramics as a binder to improve the bonding of the SiC coating as evidenced by Mubarok et al. “Suspension Plasma Spraying of sub-micron Silicon Carbide composite coatings”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaches at most a thickness of 4.5mm as each pass forms a coating thickness of 100 um and teaches 30-45 passes which would at the most teach 45 x 100 um = 4.5mm.
The Examiner agrees in part. The Examiner takes the position that the thickness is a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art and hence would be within the skill of one practicing in the art to suggest enough passes to produce the claimed greater than 5mm thickness as desired absent a showing of criticality thereof the claimed thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Xu et al. (9,469,918) teaches the claimed thickness of 5mm formed by spray plasma of SiC and diamond coatings which are separated from a substrate
Applicant argued Sun et al. (2013/0288037) teaching of “stripping” does not disclose removing the bulk material from the substrate to form a bulk part.
The Examiner agrees in part. However, the stripping would indeed meet the claimed “removing” as the coating is separated from the substrate and does not teach destroying the coating when doing so and hence would produce the claimed “bulk material”.
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715