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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed 1/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 17, and 21-23 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 17, and 21-23 are rejected 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. Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “the SiDLC coating layer consisting of: a weight percent of silicon of 1 to 50, based on a total weight of the SiDLC coating layer, carbon, and other inevitable impurities” (emphasis added) on lines 4-8. Claim 9 has been similarly amended to recite, “forming…a Silicon-Diamond like carbon (SiDLC) coating layer having a thickness of 1 µm to 4 µm, and consisting of a weight percent of silicon of 1 to 50, based on a total weight of the SiDLC coating layer, carbon, and other inevitable impurities” (emphasis added) on lines 5-8; and claim 17 has been similarly amended to recite, “the SiDLC coating layer consisting of: a weight percent of silicon of 1 to 50, based on a total weight of the SiDLC coating layer, carbon (C), and other inevitable impurities” on lines 7-11. It is first noted that the recitation “other inevitable impurities” implies that some impurity or impurities, whether inevitable or not, are already recited in the claim(s) in order to refer to these “inevitable impurities” as “other inevitable impurities” (emphasis added), however, given that the only other materials or elements listed for the SiDLC coating layer are silicon and carbon, neither of which are “impurities” given that both are required components of the SiDLC coating layer, it is unclear as to what is meant by “other” inevitable impurities. In looking to the specification (as filed), the last paragraph of page 7 recites, “The remaining ingredient of the SiDLC coating layer 120 may be C. However, because unintended impurities may be inevitably mixed from a raw material or a surrounding environment in a general manufacturing process, such impurities may be not excluded. Because the impurities are already known to anyone of engineers involved in the general manufacturing process, details about the impurities will not be described in the present specification” (emphasis added). However, the specification and the claims do not define or limit the raw material or the surrounding environment for the general manufacturing process of the SiDLC coating in order for one having ordinary skill in the art to clearly understand what materials and/or elements would be considered “inevitable impurities” and thus what materials and/or elements would be excluded by the amended “consisting of” limitation with respect to the SiDLC coating layer, especially in light of Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 1/21/2026 that hydrogen and oxygen, as disclosed by the previously-cited prior art references, are allegedly excluded by the amended “consisting of” limitation although such position appears contrary to the disclosure at page 11 of the specification, at least with respect to hydrogen, given the use of a hydrocarbon gas, e.g., acetylene, methane, and benzene, as a raw material for producing the SiDLC coating layer as noted on page 11. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, e.g., what is excluded by the claimed “consisting of” limitation given that almost any element or material may be considered an inevitable impurity based upon a given raw material and/or manufacturing process that is/are not limited by the instant claims?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jördens (WO2013/110491A2, again please refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections) in view of Kim (Effects of silicon doping on low-friction and high-hardness diamond-like carbon coating via filtered cathodic vacuum arc deposition, discussed in detail in the office action dated 11/25/2025, and incorporated herein by reference) for generally the reasons recited in a prior office action and restated below with respect to the amended claims, wherein it is again noted that Jördens clearly teaches that the amorphous carbon layers may be hydrogen-free, amorphous, diamond-like carbon layers or “ta-C” layers, wherein the ta-C layer(s) that may be ta-C:X layer(s) including a doping element X such as Si, and thus teaching and/or suggesting the claimed “consisting of” C, Si, and inevitable impurities as in the amended claims, and that the properties of the amorphous carbon layers or coatings can be specifically modified by process parameters such as precursor type and concentration, temperature, pressure, plasma torch geometry, choice of additional process gases, oxygen content, flow rate, distance to the coated component, excitation energy, etc., to achieve certain desired properties, such as hardness, low friction coefficient, scratch resistance, and temperature stability for a particular end use.
As discussed in a prior office action, Jördens teaches a component (12) for a household appliance (10), a household appliance (10) such as a glass-ceramic cooktop (e.g. a cooking appliance as in instant claims 1, 9, and 17) with such a component (12), and a method for manufacturing such a component (12) for a household appliance (10), wherein the household appliance (10) is made of steel, glass, glass-ceramic (as in amended claims 1, 9, and 17), plastic and the like, and is equipped with an amorphous carbon layer(s) (13) deposited thereon as shown in Figs. 1-3, to provide a component surface with improved physical and chemical properties such as dirt-repellent, fingerprint-repellent, wear-resistant, easy to clean, scratch-resistant, temperature-stable, chemically inert under normal operating conditions of the household appliance(s), and corrosion-inhibiting properties, e.g. for steel and the like (Abstract, Paragraphs 0001-0003, 0007, 0009, 0012-0015, 0017, 0059-0070, Figs 1-3, reading upon the claimed “exterior material for a cooking appliance”, a “cooking appliance exterior material”, and a “cooking appliance, comprising a cooking appliance body; and an exterior material on an outer side of the cooking appliance body” limitations of instant claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively).
Jördens teaches that in an advantageous embodiment of the invention, the amorphous carbon layer is applied to a component surface which is formed at least partially from a metal, a metal alloy, a glass, a glass ceramic, a ceramic or a plastic, with one exemplified end use being a household appliance (10) as shown in Fig. 1 comprising a hob (11) with a continuous surface made of glass ceramic, wherein the entire glass-ceramic cooktop or the entire surface of the household appliance can be provided with an amorphous carbon layer (Paragraphs 0063-0069); and although Jördens does not specifically limit the thickness of the glass ceramic component as the claimed “base material” of amended claims 1, 9, and 17, given that glass ceramic thickness is a known result-effective variable affecting the mechanical strength of the substrate, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the optimum thickness based upon the intended end use of the glass ceramic component taught by Jördens, and given that thicknesses on the same order of magnitude are typical in the art, the claimed thickness of 3 mm to 6 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Jördens teaches that the amorphous carbon layer(s) may be diamond-like amorphous carbon layers predominantly consisting of sp3 hybridized carbon bonds, and which are characterized in particular by high electrical resistance, extreme hardness and optical transparency (Paragraphs 0026-0030). Jördens teaches that the amorphous carbon layers may be hydrogen-free, amorphous, diamond-like carbon or “ta-C” layers, or may be hydrogen-containing, amorphous, diamond-like carbon or “ta-C:H” layers, such as with a molar hydrogen content of 20%-80%, wherein a higher molar hydrogen content, e.g. approximately 60% to 80% generally leads to a more graphite-like (sp2) structure while a lower hydrogen content of at most 30% generally leads to a more diamond-like structure of the amorphous carbon layer; and wherein the exact structure of the amorphous carbon layer depends fundamentally on the specific manufacturing conditions used (Paragraphs 0031-0033). Jördens also teaches that the amorphous carbon layer(s) can include metal(s), e.g., “a-C:Me/a-C:H:Me/ta-C:Me/ta-C:H:Me” depending on their design, generally possessing particularly high wear resistance, low coefficients of friction, and an additionally improved adhesion of the coating to certain materials, with the type of metal and its content significantly affecting the coating; and that alternatively or additionally, amorphous carbon layers can also be strongly modified by doping with elements, e.g. “a-C:X/a-C:H:X/ta-C:X/ta-C:H:X” depending on their specific design with X representing the doping element used, such as Si, O, N, F and B; wherein Si, for example, generally increases temperature resistance of the coating in oxygen-containing environments, while doping with silicon and oxygen can reduce the surface tension to values on the order of polytetrafluoroethylene, and wherein highly transparent and extremely scratch-resistant layer can be produced by doping (Paragraphs 0034-0038).
Jördens teaches that further advantages arise from the fact that the amorphous carbon layer has a thickness of at least 5 nm and/or at most 2000 nm (i.e. 2 µm), in particular, layer thicknesses of 1000 nm (i.e. 1 µm), 1500 nm (i.e. 1.5 µm), 2000 nm (i.e. 2 µm), or as recited in Paragraph 0042 (reading upon the claimed thickness range of 1 µm to 4 µm of instant claims 1, 9, and 17); and that due to the low thickness, the amorphous carbon layer can be applied to the component with very little energy input, such as by arc plasma deposition, so that components made of temperature-sensitive materials such as plastic or tempered glass, which can be subject to a loss of prestressing of the glass when coated with lacquers to be baked at temperatures of between 350°C and 500°C, can be easily coated (Paragraphs 0010-0011, and 0018-0023), thereby clearly teaching and/or suggesting that the amorphous carbon layer can be applied or formed at a temperature of less than 350°C thereby rendering the claimed 100°C to 400°C temperature range of instant claims 1, 9, and 17 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Jördens further teaches that the properties of the amorphous carbon layers or coatings can be specifically modified by process parameters such as precursor type and concentration, temperature, pressure, plasma torch geometry, choice of additional process gases, oxygen content, flow rate, distance to the coated component, excitation energy, etc., to achieve certain desired properties, such as hardness, low friction coefficient, scratch resistance, and temperature stability as noted above, for the entire surface of a particular household appliance and/or for a particular area or zone of the surface, such as by providing more temperature-stable amorphous carbon layers for cooking zones (14) than component (12) as shown in Fig. 3; and although Jördens broadly teaches that a suitable carbon-based material to be applied to the surface of the component to be coated using a plasma jet at atmospheric pressure dissociates due to the “high temperature” in the plasma, Jördens does not specifically teach that the DLC coating layer, which may be doped with Si as taught by Jördens thereby reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed “Silicon-Diamond like carbon (SiDLC) coating layer” on the glass ceramic component as the claimed “base material”, is specifically formed at a temperature 100°C to 400°C as instantly claimed, with a content of Si of 1 to 50wt% based on a total weight of the coating layer, a chrominance value (which is a measure of heat resistance of the SiDLC coating layer) of 1.0 or less, and a Vickers hardness of 1000 Hv to 2000 Hv as instantly claimed (Paragraphs 0021, 0024, 0048-0049, and 0066-0070).
However, Kim (discussed in detail in the prior office action dated 11/25/2025, and incorporated herein by reference) teaches a method of producing a tetrahedral amorphous carbon (ta-C) or DLC coating on a substrate (as in Jördens) by a hybrid plasma coating system comprising a linear ion source (LIS) method, unbalanced magnetron (UBM) sputter, and filtered cathodic vacuum arc (FCVA) deposition with a substrate etching step using LIS and a deposition temperature of 120°C, particularly as in instant claims 1, 9, 11-12, and 17 (as discussed in detail in the prior office action), wherein Kim specifically investigates the effect of Si doping content on the hardness and friction properties of the resulting Si-doped DLC coating, particularly the friction properties with respect to steel (e.g. a common material utilized for cooking vessels; Entire document, particularly pages 1-2, Experimental, and Results and discussion). Kim teaches that it is known in the art that incorporation of a dopant, such as Si, into the DLC coating is known to enhance adhesion of the coating to a substrate (as in instant claim 9), and also known to affect the tribological properties of the coating (pages 1-2). Kim specifically varies the content of Si in the DLC coating from 0 to ~20at% (reading upon the claimed Si weight percentage ranges of instant claims 1, 9, 17, and 21-23) to study the effects thereof, with the DLC coating film having a thickness of ~ 1 µm (as in Jördens) and the investigated properties including hardness and friction as noted above, as well as static water contact angle (e.g. a measure of hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity) and wear rate (Results and discussion). Kim teaches that a low-friction DLC coating can be produced by the Si doping method, wherein when the Si fraction was less than ~7at%, the coefficient of friction showed no obvious change as shown in Fig. 6a, but significantly decreased when the Si fraction was greater than ~ 8 at% as shown in Fig. 6b, with all of the friction coefficient values of the tested Si contents falling within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.2 as in instant claim 6; while increasing the Si content from 0 to 17at% increased the sp2 (C-H) ratio as shown in Fig. 5(b) and decreased the surface nanohardness to about 20 GPa (e.g. ~2000 kg/mm2 similar to the claimed Vickers hardness of 2000 Hv given that Hv is measured in kg/mm2) as shown in Fig. 5(c), although above 17at%, the sp2 ratio saturated around 0.9 and the Si-C ratio decreased slightly with a slight increase in hardness as shown in Figs. 5(a)-(c) (Results and discussion).
More specifically, Kim teaches that “increasing sp2 ratio could project a decrease in mechanical properties, particularly hardness” and that in “many previous studies on Si-doped DLC coatings, the addition of dopants could decrease the hardness and modulus because interstitial atoms or molecules destroyed the substantial and stable microstructures of coated layers42” although “[c]onversely, the hardness increased after doping when the original hardness of the coated layer was very low43” but that in “most cases, hardness could not exceed ~ 20 GPa because doping was performed on hydrogenated amorphous carbon (a-C:H) and/or hydrogen-free carbon with a relatively high sp2 ratio (a-C)” (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). Kim teaches that “[i]n case of Si doping on DLC coating using TMS gas, the hardness remained above 20 GPa, although the fraction of sp2 critically increased” and that a “previous study revealed that the hardness of Si-doped DLC could be maintained or slightly increased with an increase in the Si fraction46 if the fraction of hydrogen was lowered with increasing Si fraction” (Results and discussion). Kim teaches that “Si doping in this study was performed using the TMS gas, implying that Si doping could be achieved in the form of Si- and Si-CH3” and that the “fraction of hydrogen in the coating could be increased by increasing the TMS gas flow rate during the FCVA process; therefore, increasing the Si fraction clearly decreased the hardness of the coating” and “[t]hus, in this study, the structure of the Si-doped DLC was transformed from ta-C into a-C:Si:H rather than ta-C:Si” with the wear rate increasing with a decrease in the hardness of the coated surface (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). Kim specifically teaches that based upon the various tests, “~17 at.% of Si was concluded to be the optimum Si doping level to achieve low friction and long-term durability” of the Si-DLC coating wherein the Si doping level or fraction can be controlled by varying the TMS gas flow rate during the FCVA deposition process (page 10; Conclusions).
Hence, given that Jördens similarly teaches that the amorphous carbon coating layers may be ta-C or ta-C:H layers with a thickness as instantly claimed, and more particularly may be doped to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate and/or to further modify properties of the coating layer such as hardness, friction properties, temperature resistance, wear resistance and/or scratch resistance as discussed in detail above, e.g. as in Kim, with the amorphous carbon layers being “a-C:X/a-C:H:X/ta-C:X/ta-C:H:X” depending on their specific design and doping element X, with Jördens specifically teaching that doping with Si generally increases temperature/heat resistance of the coating in oxygen-containing environments, wherein it is again noted that the claimed “chrominance value” is a measure of the heat resistance of the DLC coating, and Kim specifically teaching that doping with Si decreases the friction coefficient and increases wear resistance with a decrease in hardness in comparison to pure ta-C coatings with examples having a friction coefficient and hardness reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed values, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the deposition process taught by Kim, including a substrate etching step using LIS and a deposition temperature of 120°C as in the instantly claimed invention, to produce the SiDLC coating layer(s) in the invention taught by Jördens, utilizing routine experimentation to determine the optimum processing conditions such as feed rate to provide the desired properties for a particular household appliance end use of the amorphous carbon (ta-C) coated or Si-doped amorphous carbon (ta-C:Si) coated component(s) in the invention taught by Jördens in view of Kim, including hardness, temperature resistance (e.g. as determined by “chrominance value”), scratch resistance, and friction coefficient, wherein properties similar to those as taught by Kim would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and thus, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 17, and 21-23 would have been obvious over the teachings of Jördens in view of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to the rejection over Jördens in view of Kim. The Applicant first argues that “Jördens [allegedly] describes it is advantageous for their amorphous carbon layer to include between 20% and 80 % hydrogen” and that “[a]ccordingly, it is [allegedly] readily apparent that Jördens does not disclose or suggest the…features of present claim 1” (see page 6, second full paragraph); and although the Applicant does not specifically point out in the argument which “features” of present claim 1 are allegedly not disclosed or suggested by Jördens or how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, given that the Applicant does specifically refer to the (non-limiting) hydrogen content taught by Jördens with respect to the non-limiting hydrogen-containing embodiment of Jördens, it is assumed that the Applicant is referring to the “consisting of” limitation of the amended claims. If so, then the Examiner respectfully disagrees and first notes that hydrogen, in general, would not be excluded from the claimed SiDLC coating layer based on the claimed “consisting of” limitation given that one skilled in the art would readily understand that hydrogen may fall under the broadly claimed “other inevitable impurities” of instant claims 1, 9, and 17, particularly in light of the present specification wherein hydrocarbon compounds such as acetylene (C2H2), methane (CH4), and benzene (C6H6) may be utilized as raw materials in producing the claimed SiDLC and the specification and claims do not explicitly exclude hydrogen. However, even if hydrogen is meant to be excluded by the claimed “consisting of” limitation of instant claims 1, 9, and 17, then the Examiner notes that Jördens clearly teaches that the amorphous carbon layer(s) may be hydrogen-free, amorphous, diamond-like carbon “ta-C” layers, or may be hydrogen-containing, amorphous, diamond-like carbon “ta-C:H” layers, wherein Jördens specifically teaches that the “advantageous” hydrogen content of 20%-80%, as argued by the Applicant, refers to “a hydrogen-containing region” and thus the “hydrogen-containing” or “ta-C:H” embodiment(s) of the invention, not the hydrogen-free “ta-C” embodiment(s), and also specifically discusses the effects of hydrogen on the carbon layers as well as doping with metals and/or doping elements such as Si and that the composition of the carbon layer(s) may be tailored to provide desired properties as noted above (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0017-0021, 0024, 0026-0039, and 0073). Hence, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the non-limiting hydrogen content taught by Jördens are not persuasive.
The Applicant also argues that “Kim [allegedly] fails to cure at least the [alleged] aforementioned deficiency of Jördens in meeting the present claims,” although the Examiner again notes that the Applicant does not specifically point out said alleged deficiency, arguing that “[f]or example, Kim discusses deposition of a diamond like carbon coating onto a tungsten carbide substrate material” and that “Kim’s coatings included oxygen in a range from about 2 at% to about 13 at % oxygen” such that “it is [allegedly] readily apparent that Kim does not disclose or suggest the aforementioned features of present claim 1” (see page 6, third full paragraph). However, with respect to the substrate material, it is noted that the Applicant appears to be arguing the references separately and not as presented in the obviousness rejection wherein Jördens already teaches ceramic glass as the claimed base material or substrate material, and hence, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the tungsten carbide substrate of Kim are not persuasive, especially given that one having ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand that the tungsten carbide used as the substrate material for the coating preparation in Kim is not the subject of the study and that the overall results of the study, i.e., the effects of silicon doping on low-friction (against steel) and high-hardness diamond-like carbon coating, including the general trends with respect to the Si fraction, would be applicable to other substrate materials such as those as taught by Jördens. In terms of the oxygen content, given that Kim does not specifically add oxygen or any oxygen compound as a raw material during the coating process (Experimental); clearly teaches that free-standing dangling bonds of the deposited coating could react with oxygen under ambient conditions after the deposition process when the substrates were extracted from the vacuum chamber (pages 3-5, Figure 2) as supported by the lower oxygen content of the bulk films (Fig. 2b) than in the outermost surface (Fig. 2a), wherein Fig. 2a shows the results of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis on the as-received surface of coated samples to investigate the outermost surface bonds without any pretreatment such as etching, while Fig. 2b shows the results of energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of the as-received sample (Coating characterizations); and actually notes that “[t]o confirm the bulk characteristics of Si-doped DLC, XPS analysis was performed after the 200-nm etching on the as-coated surface” and that “Supplementary Figure 3(a) shows that there was no oxygen in the as-coated surface” (paragraph bridging pages 10-11). Hence, it is evident that the oxygen content argued by the Applicant falls under the claimed “inevitable impurities” and given that the claims nor the specification exclude oxygen as an “inevitable” impurity, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the oxygen content of Kim are not persuasive.
In terms of Applicant’s arguments in the last two paragraphs of page 6 through the first two paragraphs of page 7 with respect to each of Wu and Kim and the claimed coefficient of friction of 0.01 to 0.2, it is noted that the rejections over Wu and Kim, taken alone, have been withdrawn by the Examiner and hence Applicant’s arguments in these sections are moot. However, it is noted that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Kim does teach a coefficient of friction (CoF) within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.2 as evident from Figure 6 and provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the content of Si in the surface of the Si-doped DLC coating directly affects the friction properties thereof such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to similarly utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum Si doping level to provide the desired low friction properties for a particular end use of the invention taught by Jördens, especially given that Jördens clearly teaches that Si doping generally increases temperature resistance of the coating and reduces the surface tension to values on the order of polytetrafluoroethylene, and that the properties of the amorphous carbon layers or coatings can be specifically modified by process parameters such as precursor type and concentration, etc. to achieve certain desired properties, such as hardness, low friction coefficient, scratch resistance, and temperature stability for a particular end use.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s alleged unexpected results as discussed on pages 7-8 of the response, the Examiner again notes that the data and results relied upon by the Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and/or are inconclusive in terms of any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results over the teachings of Jördens in view of Kim, given that the only inventive data points are at 10wt%, 15wt%, and 30wt% Si, for thicknesses of 1.5, 2.2, and 3.0 µm, respectively, at manufacturing process temperatures of 100°C, 200°C, and 300°C, respectively; thus no inventive examples are at and/or near the claimed endpoints of 1wt% and 50wt% Si for the independent claims, nor at and/or near the claimed endpoints of 1 µm and 4 µm thickness, with no two inventive examples produced with a common Si content, thickness, or temperature parameter; while comparative examples with respect to the Si content are at 0wt% and 55wt% (at 200°C), and with respect to the thickness being the only parameter outside of the claimed ranges at 0.95 µm with no examples above 4 µm, and the only comparative SiDLC example (i.e. a non-zero content of Si in the DLC coating) formed at a temperature outside of the claimed temperature range is produced at temperature of 25°C, substantially lower than the claimed 100°C lower endpoint, with no SiDLC examples produced at a temperature of higher than 400°C. Further, with respect to comparing any of the examples in order to derive any type of conclusion(s) therefrom, it is again noted that aside from comparing Embodiment 1 to Comparative Example 5 (as in Applicant’s arguments at the top of page 8 of the response) wherein the thickness changes from 2.2 µm to 0.95 µm for 15wt% Si at 200°C and comparing Embodiment 1 to Comparative Example 7 wherein the content of Si changes from 15wt% to 55wt% at a temperature of 200°C and thickness of 2.2 µm, no two of the other examples can be directly compared for a particular parameter given that more than one parameter changes therebetween. For example, the Applicant first compares Embodiment 1 having a content of Si of 15wt% and a coating layer thickness of 2.2 µm to Comparative Example 4 having no Si content and a thickness of 0.92 µm, less than half the thickness of the Si-doped coating thickness of Embodiment 1; stating that the comparison allegedly “showed that Comparative Example 6 had a Vickers hardness of about 84% of Embodiment 1, a variable load scratch resistance of about 61% of Embodiment 1, a friction coefficient about 4.5 times Embodiment 1, and a chrominance value about 5.5 times Embodiment 1” (emphasis added). In looking at Comparative Example 6 instead of Comparative Example 4 as initially recited by the Applicant, and comparing the results of Comparative Example 6 to Embodiment 1, it is noted Comparative Example 6 has a slightly lower thickness than Embodiment 1 as noted by the Applicant, e.g., about 82% of the thickness of Embodiment 1, which may definitely have an effect on the resulting properties such as the hardness, scratch resistance and/or chrominance value; however, more importantly, the general differences in the test results noted by the Applicant would not be considered “unexpected” in light of the teachings of Jördens and/or Kim given that the references clearly teach that the addition of Si into the DLC coating reduces the surface tension and coefficient of friction and increases the temperature stability which would result in a decrease in chrominance value.
In the last three lines of page 7, the Applicant again refers to Comparative Example 4 instead of Comparative Example 6, and recites that “Comparative Example 4 did not have a Vickers hardness between 1000 Hv and 2000 Hv, nor a chrominance value of 1.0 or less,” however, it is again noted that Comparative Example 4 did not contain any silicon such that a higher chrominance value (due to reduced temperature stability) would have been obvious, and also had a much lower thickness such that the lower Vickers hardness would have been obvious. Lastly, in comparing Embodiment 1 with Comparative Example 5 that like Embodiment 1 contained 15wt% Si and was formed at 200°C but was only about 43% as thick as Embodiment 1, the obtained results again would not have been considered “unexpected” results given that the reduction in hardness and the increase in chrominance value (reduction in temperature stability) could easily be attributed to the substantially reduced thickness. Hence, Applicant’s arguments of alleged unexpected results on pages 7-8 of the response are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 17, and 21-23 would have been obvious over the cited prior art as discussed in detail above.
Any rejection or objection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 1/21/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Amin (US2015/0079398A1, with Decker, US2014/0106150A1, incorporated therein by reference), which was cited by the Examiner in the related U.S. Appl. No. 17/520192, teaches a fracture-resistant layered-substrate (10) comprising an amorphous or crystalline substrate (100), such as a glass ceramic substrate, and a layer (200) provided thereon that either alone or in combination with the substrate provides scratch resistance and can exhibit a specific hardness, such as greater than about 8 GPa, wherein the “layer can include a metal oxide, a metal nitride, a metal oxynitride, a metal carbide, a metal boride, diamond-like carbon or a combination thereof, with exemplary metals including Si.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights