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 the Rejection
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection under 112(a), 102, and 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the amended limitation of “a frequency above 1 kHz”. This limitation is deemed to be new matter. Support is referenced to paragraph 30. However, the specification and paragraph 30 only support a frequency of 25-270 kHz as well as frequencies above 100 kHz. The specification does not support the broader range of above 1 kHz that would include values from 1 kHz to infinity. Therefore, the ranges disclosed in the specification do not support the amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang (KR 101862070).
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 having one or more chelating agents (i.e., sodium phosphate or sodium pyrophosphate; 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).
Regarding the amended limitation wherein the metal complexes with unwanted metal ions and the metal complexes remain in the electrolyte, this would be inherent or obvious over Kang since the chelating agent of Kang would necessarily form a metal complex and Kang is silent to the metal complex being incorporated in the coating. It is further noted that the amended limitation is describing a desired result or function that would naturally follow from the chelating agent and the claim does not positively recite a process step, any specific unwanted ions, any specific metals of the metal complex, or any specific chelating agents. Therefore, since Kang teaches the same process, in particular forming a coating by plasma electrolytic oxidation on a plasma channel using essentially the same composition as that of the instant claim, Kang’s chelating agent would have the same result as in recited claim 1.
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 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 would necessarily form the coating as required by the instant claims since the claimed process steps are the same as those taught by Kang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 101862070) in view of Combes et al. (FR 3110605 A1).
Kang does 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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Combes et al. (FR3110605A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20070178810).
Regarding claims 6-8, Kang and Combes et al. teach the method as applied to claims 1 and 5 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 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).
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al. teaches using 99.5% purity white aluminum oxide (paragraph 70).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR101862070) in view of Guan et al. (CN109112602A).
Kang does not explicitly teach cleaning with a high frequency ultrasonic energy clean for a time sufficient to remove small size particles and embedded process residues from said surface.
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). This reads on a frequency above 1 kHz.
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 by using high frequency ultrasonic cleaning as taught by Guan et al. because ultrasonic cleaning is a suitable method of cleaning a metal substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further perform the cleaning for a time sufficient to remove small particle and embedded process residues to thoroughly and completely clean the plasma sub-block of Kang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered. The prior art rejection using Kaseem et al. as a secondary reference has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 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
Prosecution Insights