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 § 103
Claim 1, 2, 4-6, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lince (NPL) in view of Fusaro (NPL) and Vuchkov (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Lince teaches space where a part of the surface has a solid lubricant coating (Abstract), comprising TMD, a 2D material, of MoSe2, a transition metal metal and chalcogen (Page 6). Lince teaches a layer of can be just MoSe2, which has 0 at% of C, N, or S. (Page 5-6). Lince teaches the monolayer can formed on a substrate, which means the monolayer/coating is formed on an outer surface of a part. (Page 23).
Lince does not specifically teach the respective pressure. However, Lince teaches 2D material can be a TMD, MoSe2, and the instant Specification recites MoSe2 has a vapor pressure of at most 10 Pa at a temperature of 232 K (Claim 6 of Vol). Therefore, Lince teaches a 2D material would inherently have the claimed vapor pressure property recited in Claim 1.
Linc does not specifically teach the surface is exposed to atomic oxygen.
However, Fusaro teaches lubricant systems for spacecraft are exposed to an oxygen environment. (Page 1). Therefore, the surface with solid lubricant of Lince will be exposed to atomic oxygen.
While Lince and Fursaro do not specifically teach the resulting spacecraft has improved oxygen resistance hand has enhanced atomic reflection properties, as Lince teaches the same material, MoSe2, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the spacecraft of Lince and Fusaro to also have the same properties, including atomic oxygen resistance and enhanced atomic reflection properties.
Lince does not teach the roughness of the coating.
Vuchkov teaches a MoSe coating operating as a lubricating coating. (Abstract). Vuckov teaches a roughness Ra of 5.4 to 58.4 nm for self-lubricating coatings comprising MoSe (Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range, and would be measured over a distance of up to 24 mm using Bruker Inova force microscopy. Vuchkov teaches this roughness range are suitable for providing a low COF to operate as a self-lubricated coating. (Page 11-14) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the roughness range for the lubricant film of Lince to ensure proper operation as a lubricating film
Regarding Claim 2, Lince teaches the coating can be a layer comprising MoSe2, which has 0 at% of C, N, or S. (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 4-6, Lince teaches the 2D material is a TMD of MoSe2. (Page 6)
Regarding Claim 18, Lince teaches the part can be formed on a satellite. (Page 25).
Regarding Claim 19, Lince teaches the coating can be a layer comprising MoSe2, which has 0 at% of C, N, or S. (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Lince teaches the M is Mo, a second-row transition metal. (Page 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Lince teaches the M is MO. (Page 2)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lince, Fusaro, and Vuchkov in view of Jang et al. (US 2008/0048152 A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Lince does not teach the 2D material comprises flakes having a dimension, transverse to a thickness of the flake, in a range of 5 nm to 390 nm. This dimension would either be the width or the length of the flake.
Jang teaches exfoliating MoSe2 (Paragraph 0061-0063) to lengths of less than 1 micron. (Paragraph 0037). This overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 390 nm. Jang teaches this method of forming MoSe2 leads to higher yields and higher quality layers (Paragraph 0010-0013). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form a layer using MoSe2 flake in Lince as Jang teaches a process that provides higher yields and better-quality resulting layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues intended use of the coating as a protective coating versus the solid lubricant coating recited in the prior art. This argument is found unpersuasive, as intended use does not place a structural limitation on the claim.
Applicant argues the roughness taught by Vuchkov is not suitable for an oxygen resistance. This argument is found unpersuasive, as there is no showing such roughness would remove the oxygen resistance properties of MoSe2.
Applicant argues unexpected results for a MoSe2 with regard to the roughness and the flake size. Applicant argues the Xu paper teaches the roughness of 4.2 +1.7 nm is critical for a MoSe2 coating. However, the claim is not commensurate in scope with the data provided. The Xu paper recites a narrower range, of 4.2 +1.7 nm, than the claimed range 0 to 10 nm. The Xu paper is also not directed to MoSe2 coating, but other types of substrates. Therefore, it is uncertain how a finding of a specific range of roughness of another material can be applied to the MoSe2 coating for unexpected results.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights