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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 3-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/13/24.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3023513 in view of US 2004/0140296 to Lis.
Claims 11, 20-21:
Cited prior art teaches a method for applying metallic or metal oxide coating on substrate under ambient conditions (abstract). Ambient conditions means open air conditions at atmospheric pressure [0016-0017]. The process includes a target (i.e., an evaporant source), a laser, and a receiving substrate arranged so that the laser hits the target facing the substrate and generates a plasma plume (i.e., a vapor plume) that is deposited onto the substrate [0020]. In order to optimize deposition, the target-substrate distance is set from 2-20 mm [0029].
‘513 is discussed above, and does teach the target-substrate distance is varied in order to obtain optimum deposition, including values outside of the explicit range [0029], but does not explicitly teach a distance less than or equal to 100 micrometers or 50 micrometers. However, Lis teaches a similar procedure including the prior art technique where the laser hits the target facing the substrate (Fig. 1) and the rear of the target (Fig. 2) where the source to substrate spacing was place in very close proximity, less than 1 mm [0108]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of ‘513 and adjust the target-substrate distance to a value less than 1 mm, inclusive of 100 or 50 micrometers, because Lis states this is a suitable distance for this type of deposition procedure.
Claim 13:
A heater is incorporated under the substrate to increase the temperature of the substrate [EP 0020].
Claim 14:
While the prior art reference does teach heating the substrate in order to increase coating adhesion [EP 0020-0021], a particular temperature is not given. However, the particular temperature would have been obvious through routine optimization of this result effective variable, inclusive of the claimed range.
Claim 15:
An auxiliary gas flow is provided [EP 0020] as part of deposition [EP 0021] to entrain and transport the plasma plume towards the substrate.
Claim 22:
At least titania is taught as the coating material [EP 0026].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3023513 in view of US 2004/0140296 to Lis in view of US 2011/0151270 to Rockstroh.
‘513 is discussed above but does not explicitly teach the auxiliary gas flow heats the substrate. However, Rockstroh teaches an atmospheric deposition method where a gas stream and plasma combine to form a plasma torch directed at the substrate [0014] (Fig. 1). This arrangement necessarily transfers heat from the plasma torch to the substrate. In fact, a parameter typically associated with this type of deposition is substrate cooling to offset the heating effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the heat generated by gas stream and plasma (plasma torch) to impart heat to the substrate. In the combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3023513 in view of US 2004/0140296 to Lis in view of US 2011/0151270 to Rockstroh in view of US 5236745 to Gupta.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach a bond coat layer. However, Gupta teaches a method for coating an article wherein the article is first coated with a bond coat layer prior to deposition of a TBC (abstract). The bond coat ensures good mechanical properties, temperature resistance, and resists spalling (2:25-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bond coat layer in order to improve bonding between the layers and improve the performance of the coating system as a whole.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3023513 in view of US 2004/0140296 to Lis in view of WO 2007/096464 to Ruuttu.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach a laser source for heating the vapor plume and/or substrate. However, Ruuttu teaches a laser-based deposition method where an additional laser is provided and directed at the vapor plume and substrate (Fig. 2, unnumbered column laser traveling through collimator; Fig. 4, laser 130). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a laser directed at both the vapor plume and substrate. In the combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The benefit of this addition would have been increased control over the temperature of both the vapor plume and substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the combination of ‘513 and Lis, the examiner acknowledges the processes are not identical. As applicant points out, ‘513 directs the laser to the “front” surface of the evaporant source whereas Lis directs the laser to the “back” surface of the evaporant source that is supported on a transparent medium. However, the examiner considers this difference to be an obvious alternative for supplying and acting on the evaporant source. It is noted that both ‘513 and Lis are directed to an atmospheric laser-induced vapor deposition process. The selection of a bulk vs. thin film evaporant source and direction of laser impingement would have been obvious based on the collective teachings of ‘513 and Lis.
It is further noted that the combination is not using the process of Lis and substituting a bulk evaporant source. Rather, the combination is using the process of ‘513 and moving the bulk evaporant source closer to the substrate. Lis provides evidence that this smaller distance is known and desired in the context of this type of deposition process.
Applicant argues that the smaller distances of Lis requires both a thin film target and rear laser impingement. However, it is not clear why the target-substrate distance taught by Lis would not be applicable to a configuration where the laser impinges on the side of the target facing the substrate or a target that is a bulk material. Neither reference explicitly condemns this combination, and there is no technical barrier to simply moving the target and substrate closer together. In this respect, Lis provides motivation for the smaller target-substrate distances in the field of pulsed laser deposition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759