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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-18 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026, with respect to claims 1-8, 16 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the carrier fluid supplied directly to a local region. However, the Examiner notes that these claims are to a coating for a substrate and not the method of making the coating. Furthermore, Coulson in view of Coulson2’s coating will be essentially identical to that claimed, regardless of whether the carrier fluid is supplied directly or indirectly to the local region as this will not affect the final qualities of the produced coating. Additionally, Applicant has not provided evidence or an explanation of why supplying the carrier fluid directly rather than indirectly would yield a materially different coating. Thus, the rejections of claim 1-8, 16 and 17 are maintained as presented below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-15 and 18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1-8, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0211004) in view of Coulson et al. (WO 2005/089961, hereinafter referred to as Coulson2).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 16, Coulson teaches a coating comprising an upper side and a lower side (0010) on a surface of a substrate (abstract) with the upper side exposed to the atmosphere (0014). Coulson teaches an example where the coating is a polymer including silver nanoparticles formed from a monomer and silver nanoparticles (which are pathogen inhibiting, such that the upper side of the coating is adapted to be in contact with pathogens) exposed to a plasma formed from a carrier gas, helium (0101), which causes polymerization of the monomer and deposition on to the article (0100-0102) using a RF plasma module (0101). Coulson teaches that the plasma may be conducted at atmospheric pressure (0072). Coulson teaches purging the atmosphere around the sides of the substrate by pulling a vacuum and then teaches providing the carrier gas around the sides of the substrate. Coulson fails to explicitly teach that the carrier gas purges the region around the side of the substrate and the carrier fluid supplied directly to a local region between the substrate and a plasma module.
However, Coulson teaches that the equipment used is disclosed and the method for producing the substrates in accordance with the invention is specifically described in Coulson2 (0087). Furthermore, Coulson2 teaches the plasma process (abstract) comprising pulling a vacuum to purge the atmosphere around the sides of a substrate to be treated (page 18, lines 30-34) followed by providing a carrier gas while pulling the vacuum such that the carrier gas purges the region around the side of the substrate (page 19, lines 9-19). 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 Coulson’s process to ensure that carrier gas is used to purge the region around the side of the substrate as disclosed by Coulson2 to thereby arrive at the claimed product. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Coulson specifically teaches that Coulson2 should be referred to for the treatment process and Coulson2 teaches that the purging with the carrier gas removes any remaining air in the system (page 19, lines 15-16) which will prevent contamination.
Finally, Coulson in view of Coulson2 fail to explicitly teach that the carrier fluid is supplied directly to a local region between the substrate and a plasma module so that the carrier gas purges the region. However, Coulson in view of Coulson2’s carrier gas will purge the region, even if not supplied directly as claimed. As Coulson in view of Coulson2 teach an identical coating which has a step of purging the local atmosphere, this coating is expected to be identical to the claimed coating, as the manner in which the carrier gas is supplied (whether directly or indirectly) will not ultimately affect the final coating. Therefore, Coulson in view of Coulson2’s coating makes obvious the claimed coating as it will be identical to the claimed coating regardless of how the carrier gas is supplied for purging.
II. Regarding claims 3 and 17, the Examiner notes that claims 3 and 17 are directed towards a coating. Furthermore, the method in which the coating is made is not necessarily relevant to the properties of the coating. Coulson in view of Coulson2’s coating prepared from a monomer in an atmospheric pressure (1 atm) carrier gas plasma (see above) with purging at an undisclosed pressure in the local region will be identical to a coating made with the same monomers and nanoparticles in a plasma that is very slightly above atmospheric pressure, for example at 1.0001 atm and wherein the purging yields an atmosphere of greater than 1 bar to the local region. Therefore, Coulson in view of Coulson2’s coating is identical to the coating of claims 3 and 17. Thus, Coulson in view of Coulson2 make obvious claims 3 and 17.
III. Regarding claim 5, Coulson in view of Coulson2 make obvious claim 1 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach wherein more than one species of nanomaterial is in the coating. However, Coulson in view of Coulson2 does teach that the nanomaterial included can be any convenient type and can include metal, silicone, silica or polymeric nanoparticles (see Coulson at 0019) and can have different sizes (see Coulson at 0020). 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 Coulson in view of Coulson2’s coating by using a combination of different nanoparticles or different nanoparticle sizes. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Coulson in view of Coulson2 teach that different types and sizes of particles can be used (see above) and the selection of multiple species of nanoparticles would allow for tailoring and optimization of the properties of the resultant coating.
2. Claim(s) 9-11, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson in view of Nisol et al. (“Poly(ethylene glycol) Films Deposited by Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Liquid Deposition and Atmospheric Pressure Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapour Deposition: Process, Chemical Composition Analysis and Biocompatibility”).
Regarding claims 9-11, 13-15 and 18, Coulson teaches a method comprising positioning a substrate below a treatment module (0087, 0091 and 0100); purging the local atmosphere, using helium as a carrier fluid (0101); supplying helium as a plasma fluid to an electrode region comprising two or more electrodes (0079 and 0101); igniting a plasma forming a plasma in the electrode region (0079 and 0101); supplying a monomer and nanomaterial in the monomer as a carrier fluid to the plasma through a gas aperture (0080, 0082 and 0102) such that the monomer is polymerized and is fixed to the substrate with the nanomaterial distributed throughout the coating (0102). Coulson’s nanomaterial is silver nanoparticles which are known to release ions which will interfere with pathogens. Finally, Coulson also teaches that the nanomaterial may be applied in a pre-treatment step before being supplied to the plasma (0016). Coulson fails to explicitly teach that the local atmosphere is directly purged with the carrier fluid providing a pressure of greater than 1 bar to the region.
However, Coulson teaches that plasma can be a RF or DC plasma operated at atmospheric pressure. Additionally, Nisol teaches a similar plasma deposition process using an atmospheric RF pressure plasma apparatus (Figure 1 and second column, page 716). Nisol teaches providing the carrier gas through a plasma gas inlet directly to the area between the plasma module and the sample (Figure 1) which is open to the atmosphere (Figure 1). 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 Coulson’s process by purging in Coulson’s atmospheric pressure plasma process by directly supplying the carrier gas to the area between the plasma module and the substrate to purge the area around the substrate in an open atmosphere as disclosed by Nisol (note that providing this gas in an open atmosphere will necessarily increase the local pressure to a pressure greater than 1 bar during the purging step). One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would provide a simple system (no pump would be needed for expelling the gas in the local atmosphere) and would allow for greater control over the purging and allow for providing the plasma species to the substrate in a controlled and directed manner.
3. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulson in view of Nisol as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 8138444).
Regarding claim 12, Coulson in view of Nisol teach all the limitations of claim 9 (see above), but fail to teach the treatment module identifying an article below the electrodes and activating the electrodes corresponding to the size of the article. However, Kim teaches a plasma apparatus (abstract) which identifies the presence of an article to be treated below the electrodes (abstract) and then activates the electrodes based on the size of the article (column 7, lines 2-52 and column 9, lines 18-56). 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 Coulson in view of Nisol’s process by additionally having the treatment module identify an article below the electrode and then activating the electrodes based on the size of the article as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow for different sized substrates to be treated as well as for the automatic detection of a substrate and activation of the plasma coating process, as well as having greater control over the coating process and the location of the plasma in relation to the article.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
June 10, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights