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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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.
As to claim 1, the term “suitable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” 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. For instance, paragraph [0048] of PGPub of the instant application teaches to what the gas used can be, but does not positively define what “suitable” gas is. For examination purpose, the term “suitable gas” is interpreted as “gas”.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouyin Zhang of US 2017/0221685 A1 (hereinafter, Zhang) in view of Alexis Boulmay of US 2019/0326088 A1(hereinafter, Boulmay).
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches to a method for plasma treating a target surface of a part including the following steps of:
obtaining the target surface on the part (Zhang, paragraph [0021], Fig. 1, teaches to the substrate 101 as the target surface on the part).
Zhang does not explicitly teach comprising an operation of depositing a coat of varnish on a dedicated area of the target surface and an operation of pre-crosslinking at least a portion of the coat of varnish by exposing at least a portion of the target surface to ultraviolet radiation.
In an analogous art, Boulmay teaches to comprising an operation of depositing a coat of varnish on a dedicated area of the target surface and an operation of pre-crosslinking at least a portion of the coat of varnish by exposing at least a portion of the target surface to ultraviolet radiation (Boulmay, paragraph [0014], teaches to depositing the mask on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces of the object made of an at least partially transparent material and that the masking layer is an ultraviolet radiation-sensitive resin which is structured by means of a UV source).
Both Zhang and Boulmay relate to structuring a pattern in the thickness of an object (Boulmay, paragraph [0004]) using deposition (Boulmay, paragraph [0010]) on crystalline material (Boulmay, paragraph [0001]). Zhang does not explicitly teach a masking layer. Zhang does teach performing a plasma-assisted physical vapor deposition for metal alloys (Zhang, paragraphs [0021] and [0024]). Boulmay teaches to providing a masking layer comprising an UV-sensitive resin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plasma-assisted PVD method of Zhang with the masking layer of Boulmay for providing mechanical properties that protects the masked area from being etched.
Zhang in view of Boulmay teaches to placing the part in a chamber of a plasma generator (Zhang, paragraph [0019], Fig.1, teaches to a plasma-assisted PVD chamber);
evacuating the chamber to a pressure of between 10-6 and 10 mbar (Zhang, paragraph [0047], teaches to an operating pressure range of about 0.1 mTorr to about 100 mTorr; 100 mTorr reads as 0.1 mbar);
injecting a suitable gas into the chamber until a pressure in the chamber of between 10-4 and 102 mbar is reached (Zhang, paragraph [0050], teaches that a process gas is flowed into the interior volume 106 from the gas source 110, wherein the pressure is increased to about 0.1 mTorr to about 100 mTorr, and wherein the process gas may be argon);
generating an electric current discharge within the chamber, via an electric generator, in order to generate a plasma (Zhang, paragraph [0029], teaches that an initial bias voltage is applied by a controllable direct current or alternating current collimator power source 190 directly to the collimator to help break down the process gas and ignite the plasma; igniting plasma using a bias voltage involves an electric current discharge because excess bias voltage over the electrical breakdown threshold causes ionization and sparking plasma through electrical current discharge); and
exposing the target surface of the part to the plasma for a predetermined period of time, depending at least on the power of the electric current discharge (Boulmay, paragraph [0033], Fig. 1, teaches to creating a plasma 10 and exposing the target surface of the part to ion beam 14 of the plasma 10; the exposure necessarily occurs for a predetermined period of time, depending at least on the power supplied by ECR ion source 1),
the gas injected into the chamber and the material of the target surface, so as to deteriorate the surface condition of the target surface in order to increase the roughness thereof to mat said target surface (Boulmay, paragraph [0038], teaches to bombarding by means of a nitrogen ion beam, so as to rendering the decorative pattern 22 on the sapphire sample 26; Boulmay, paragraph [0032], teaches that the ions strike the surface of the object and penetrate therein up to a certain depth, creating cavity or void type defects; the plasma etching of Boulmay and the resulting decorative pattern 22 increases the roughness thereof to mat said target surface),
said step of exposing the target surface of the part to the plasma being carried out so as to finish the crosslinking of the portion of the pre-crosslinked varnish coat (Boulmay, paragraph [0051], teaches that the mask may also be obtained by means of a layer of light-sensitive resin, for example sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, and be structured by means of a light source, for example ultraviolet and that the mask must exhibit mechanical properties such that the ion beam does not succeed in etching the surface; the target surface is necessarily exposed to the plasma so as to finish the crosslinking of the portion of the pre-crosslinked varnish coat that is initiated by the UV radiation).
As to claim 2, Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach wherein, during the pre-crosslinking operation, the target surface is exposed to the ultraviolet radiation for 5 to 10 seconds.
Zhang in view of Boulmay, however, does teach to the method of claim 1, wherein, during the pre-crosslinking operation, the target surface is exposed to the ultraviolet radiation (Boulmay, paragraph [0014], teaches to depositing the mask on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces of the object made of an at least partially transparent material and that the masking layer is an ultraviolet radiation-sensitive resin which is structured by means of a UV source).
Here, the UV exposed time is a variable that results from routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Exposure to the UV radiation under an optimized time results in increased energy efficiency in triggering crosslinking and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust accordingly.
For instance, exposing UV-curable coatings to excess UV light can result in polymer chain degradation and thermal damage that may lead to undesirable brittleness and cracking of the coat of varnish. On the other hand, insufficient or underexposure to UV light results in incomplete curing that may lead to poor layer adhesion and tacky quality of the coat of varnish.
There is insufficient showing that the claimed UV exposure time for the coat of varnish would have been novel and nonobvious to the operation of the invention because UV-triggered crosslinking is generally known to be optimal between 1 and 60 seconds, and therefore the optimized time is not as substantial as to render a question whether the invention is novel and nonobvious. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply optimize the UV exposure time for triggering crosslinking mechanism in curing the coat of varnish.
The Office notes that the recited method of the instant claim can be reached by one of ordinary skill in the art by simply choosing a different operating parameters to implement the recited method of UV curing in claim 2, so long as the optimized UV exposure time results in triggering crosslinking for curing of the coat of varnish.
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation.
As to claim 3, Zhang in view of Boulmay teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the chamber is evacuated to a pressure of between 0.1 and 1 mbar (Zhang, paragraph [0023], teaches to maintaining the pressure of about 1 Torr or less for deposition; 0.5 Torr reads as 0.7 mbar).
As to claim 7, Zhang in view of Boulmay teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein, at the end of the step of obtaining the target surface on the part, a step of depositing a masking layer is carried out over a portion of the target surface corresponding to an exposed area, said masking layer being configured to protect the masked area from the plasma (Boulmay, paragraph [0051], teaches that the mask may also be obtained by means of a layer of light-sensitive resin, for example sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, and be structured by means of a light source, for example ultraviolet and that the mask must exhibit mechanical properties such that the ion beam does not succeed in etching the surface; the masking material of Boulmay, when deposited as a masking layer, is configured to protect the masked area from the plasma).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouyin Zhang of US 2017/0221685 A1 (hereinafter, Zhang) in view of Alexis Boulmay of US 2019/0326088 A1(hereinafter, Boulmay), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tetsuo Okuyama of US 2017/0225433 A1 (hereinafter, Okuyama).
As to claim 4, Zhang in view of Boulmay teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein, during the gas injection step, argon is injected into the chamber (Zhang, paragraph [0022], teaches that examples of process gases that may be provided by the gas source 110 include, but not limited to, argon gas) until a pressure of between 0.6 and 0.8 mbar is reached in the chamber (Zhang, paragraph [0023], teaches to maintaining the pressure of about 1 Torr or less for deposition; 0.5 Torr reads as 0.7 mbar).
Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach at a mass flow rate of between 15 and 25 sccm.
In an analogous art, Okuyama teaches to at a mass flow rate of between 15 and 25 sccm (Okuyama, paragraph [0251], teaches that the flow rate of N2 gas and the flow rate of Ar gas in the vacuum chamber were controlled by a mass flow controller to have a ratio of 20 sccm:10 sccm).
Both Zhang in view of Boulmay and Okuyama relate to a condition suitable for plasma treatment (Okuyama, paragraph [0134]). Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach the mass flow rate of argon. Zhang in view of Boulmay does teach injecting argon into the chamber for a plasma treatment. Okuyama teaches the specified mass flow rate of argon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plasma-assisted PVD of Zhang in view of Boulmay with the mass flow rate of Okuyama for providing, and thereby making operable, plasma treatment in surface activation treatment.
As to claim 5, Zhang in view of Boulmay and Okuyama teaches to the method of claim 4, wherein the electric generator develops a power of between 2,000 and 2,600 W during the step of generating an electric current discharge (Zhang, paragraph [0047], teaches to a power of between about 100 W to about 3000 W) and the step of exposing the target surface is carried out for 1 to 2 minutes (Okuyama, paragraph [0251], teaches that the plasma treatment was carried out for 2 minutes).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouyin Zhang of US 2017/0221685 A1 (hereinafter, Zhang) in view of Alexis Boulmay of US 2019/0326088 A1(hereinafter, Boulmay), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Axel Becker of US 2023/0256468 A1 (hereinafter, Becker).
As to claim 6, Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach wherein the varnish coat has a gloss unit measured of 60° of less than 5 GU.
In an analogous art, Becker teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the varnish coat has a gloss unit measured of 60° of less than 5 GU (Becker, paragraph [0226], teaches to F1 and F2 coating material that exhibit gloss unit less than 5 GU when measured at 60°).
Both Zhang in view of Boulmay and Becker relate to producing matt coatings (Becker, paragraph [0001]). Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach the gloss unit of the varnish coat. Zhang in view of Boulmay does teach providing the varnish coat. Becker teaches to providing the varnish coat exhibiting gloss unit less than 5 GU when measured at 60°.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coat of varnish of Zhang in view of Boulmay with the F1 and F2 coating materials that comprise desired gloss units of Becker for producing matt surfaces easier in a coating process.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouyin Zhang of US 2017/0221685 A1 (hereinafter, Zhang) in view of Alexis Boulmay of US 2019/0326088 A1(hereinafter, Boulmay), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Darko Pervan of US 2014/0198168 A1 (hereinafter, Pervan).
As to claim 8, Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach wherein, during the pre-crosslinking operation for the varnish coat, only a portion of said coat is pre-crosslinked, the other portion being fully crosslinked.
In an analogous art, Pervan teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein, during the pre-crosslinking operation for the varnish coat, only a portion of said coat is pre-crosslinked, the other portion being fully crosslinked (Pervan, paragraph [0020], teaches that, among different stages, stage B is obtained when the molecules have started to cross link but the resin is still possible to cure in a final stage if the drying of the resin is made during a rather short time, for example, one minute and with a heat of about 90-120° C; stage B reads, therefore, as partial crosslinking as some layer is triggered to crosslink whereas some other layer is not triggered to crosslink).
Both Zhang in view of Boulmay and Pervan relate to curing via crosslinking (Pervan, paragraph [0020]). Zhang in view of Boulmay does not explicitly teach semi-curing of UV-sensitive materials in different stages. Zhang in view of Boulmay does teach to the masking layer is an ultraviolet radiation-sensitive resin which is structured by means of a UV source. Pervan teaches to partial crosslinking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UV treatment of Zhang in view of Boulmay with the semi-curing of Pervan for allowing a semi-cured state that allows for increased control over curing, thereby resulting in improved geometric accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights