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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 18, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of species I, claims 1-8 and 11-14, without traverse in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the surface” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear whether this limitation is referring to the pretreated “at least one surface, ” the “processed surface,” or the “smoothed surface.” It is suggested to amend the claim limitation to “the at least one surface”.
Regarding claim 6, the term “high purity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high purity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is dependent on claim 1 recites the pressure and blasting angle. However, these parameters appear to be associated with the dry bead blasting step in claims 5 and 6. Therefore, reciting the parameters relating to pressure and blasting angle without any specific processing technique makes it unclear as what processing technique would be required for these parameters other than the dry bead blasting which is not required in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 11, the terms “high frequency” and “an extended time” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high frequency” and “an extended time” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Kaseem et al. ("Optimization of surface properties of plasma electrolytic oxidation coating by organic additives: a review." Coatings 11.4 (2021): 374).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a method of coating a plasma channel (i.e., sub-block (SB) or transfer path (TP); paragraph 33 and Fig. 1) of a plasma source, comprising:
providing at least one electrolyte (paragraph 22);
treating at least one surface of said plasma channel to produce a processed surface (i.e., coating at least one layer of plasma electrolytic oxidation coating on the surface and internal path of the remote plasma sub-block; paragraph 58);
smoothing a surface of the processed surface with at least one post processing technique to produce at least one smoothed processed surface (i.e., the porous outer layer can be removed through processes such as polishing; paragraph 26); and
cleaning the smoothed surface (i.e., control or removal of surface roughness may be performed after a finishing process, such as washing or drying; paragraph 26).
Kang does not explicitly teach providing one or more chelating agents in the electrolyte.
Kaseem et al. teaches using organic additives in electrolyte for PEO coatings. These organic additives, i.e., chelating agents, provide an effective approach to optimize and improve the surface properties of PEO coatings (Abstract and section 5 Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporated the organic additives, or chelating agents, of Kaseem et al. in electrolyte of Kang to improve the surface properties of the PEO coating.
Regarding claims 2-4, Kang teaches treating the surface of a plasma source block using plasma electrolytic oxidation process (paragraph 58).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kang in view of Kaseem et al. teaches the method of forming a coating using the process step as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. The method steps of Kang in view of Kaseem et al. would necessarily form the coating as required by the instant claims since the claimed process steps are the same as those taught by Kang in view of Kaseem et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Kaseem et al. ("Optimization of surface properties of plasma electrolytic oxidation coating by organic additives: a review." Coatings 11.4 (2021): 374), and further in view of Combes et al. (FR3110605A1).
Kang in view of Kaseem et al. teaches the method steps as described above. The references do not explicitly teach a postprocessing technique comprising dry bead blasting.
Combes et al. teaches forming a plasma electrolytic oxidation coating on metal parts (paragraph 5). Combes et al. teaches post treatment processes of the coating can include polishing, sandblasting, or micro-blasting to remove the friable, superficial layer (paragraph 76, 132). It can also be mechanically machined by honing or grinding to remove all of the friable layer (paragraph 76). Sandblasting or micro-blasting broadly reads on the claimed dry bead blasting process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the method of Kang by incorporating the dry bead blasting process, or sandblasting, as taught by Combes et al. to remove the friable, superficial layer on the POE coating.
Claims 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Kaseem et al. ("Optimization of surface properties of plasma electrolytic oxidation coating by organic additives: a review." Coatings 11.4 (2021): 374), Combes et al. (FR3110605A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20070178810).
Kang in view of Kaseem et al. and Combes et al. teaches the method as described above. Combes et al. teaches sandblasting or dry bead blasting the POE coating. However, the references do not explicitly teach the specific material or conditions of the dry bead blasting process such as using aluminum oxide as the blast media (claim 6), the pressure and angle of the blasting (claim 7), or the amount of material removed (claim 8).
Choi et al. teaches a method of bead blasting an aluminum surface of a diffuser for a plasma deposition apparatus (paragraphs 38, 40). Choi et al. teaches using 99.5% purity white aluminum oxide with a nozzle angle of 45° to about 47° and a pressure of 65-85 psi (paragraph 70) which are within the ranges of claim 7. These nozzle angle and pressure overlap the instant claim ranges.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have modified the method of Kang in view of Kaseem et al. and Combes et al. to use the aluminum oxide, nozzle angle, and pressure of Choi et al., because Choi et al. teaches that these conditions are suitable for texturizing a surface for forming additional coatings. Further addressing claim 8, while the references do not explicitly teach the specific amount of material removed or the specific reduction in surface roughness and area, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the amount of removal depends on the time of the blasting process. One having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the process to remove the desired amount of material based on the final desired thickness of the coating. Since the blasting process removes the friable, superficial layer (paragraph 76 of Combes et al.), the surface roughness and surface area would necessarily be reduced. According to MPEP 2144.05, "where 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Kaseem et al. ("Optimization of surface properties of plasma electrolytic oxidation coating by organic additives: a review." Coatings 11.4 (2021): 374), and further in view of Guan et al. (CN109112602A).
Kang in view of Kaseem et al. teaches the method steps as described above. The references do not explicitly teach cleaning with a high frequency ultrasonic energy clean.
Guan et al. teaches forming coatings by plasma electrolytic oxidation (paragraph 5). Guan et al. cleaning amended substrate using ultrasonic cleaning with high frequency of 25-30 kHz (paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the cleaning step of Kang in view of Kaseem et al. by using high frequency ultrasonic cleaning as taught by Guan et al. because ultrasonic cleaning is a suitable method of cleaning a metal substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rogov, A. B. "Plasma electrolytic oxidation of A1050 aluminium alloy in homogeneous silicate-alkaline electrolytes with edta complexes of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, La and Ba under alternating polarization conditions." Materials Chemistry and Physics 167 (2015): 136-144. (Year: 2015). This reference teaches EDTA as a chelating agent for PEO coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights