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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/3/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1, the cancellation of claims 7-8 and the addition of new claims 15-16. Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered and are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
As for the ratio of He and Ar in the plasma, the examiner cites here Kim et al. (Atmospheric pressure PECVD of SiO2 thin film at a low temperature using HMDS/O2/He/Ar). Kim et al. also in the art of plasma deposition of HMDS, an organosilane monomer, via a plasma generating gas and discloses the He/Ar mixture is used to generate a plasma (“He/Ar was used as the discharge gas”) and discloses using 2 slm of Helium and 600 sccm of Argon (see e.g. “He(2slm)/Ar(600sccm)”). Here, the 2 slm of He converts to 2000 sccm. Kim discloses a range of 3.33 He to Ar (2000 He to 600 Ar). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified EP 170, who discloses using gas of a mixture of He and Ar, and use the ratio as disclosed by Kim, as both references are concerned with plasma generating gas and organosilanes. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie” inside ranges disclosed by prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 191 USPQ 90. See MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments related to the plasma temperature as a result of the mixing ratio are noted and such is not established with factual evidence to be considered unexpected results or unpredictable results for the entire scope of the claim as drafted. Even in the event that evidence is set forth, the examiner notes that WO 9313906 A1 discloses the plasma temperature will be directly controlled by the composition of the plasma gases, including the amount of He in the He/Ar plasma (see paragraph bridging pages 15-16, “As already indicated, the temperature of the plasma jet may also be controlled by controlling the proportion of constituent plasma gases supplied to the chamber 28 to produce the jet. For example, the greater is the proportion of helium in a helium-argon mixture, the lower is the plasma jet temperature, and vice versa”, see also paragraph bridging pages 11-12)
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3101170 A1, hereinafter EP 170 taken with US 20160250831 A1 by Gladish et al., EP 3399538, hereinafter EP 538, US Patent Application Publication 20180025892 by Biquet et al. and Kim et al. (Atmospheric pressure PECVD of SiO2 thin film at a low temperature using HMDS/O2/He/Ar)
Claim 1: EP 170 discloses a process for a production of water repellent coatings on fabric substrates comprising: providing a fabric substrate (0001, 0002); providing a first plasma source for a deposition of said water repellent coating on the fabric substrate (0021, 0066-0068); injecting a first plasma generating gas (0057-0058) at a flow rate; applying a first electrical power to the first plasma source (plasma power is taught at 0070-0072), so that a first power density of the plasma is between 3 kW and 15 kW (see 0070-0072) per unit of plasma of the first plasma source; injecting an organosilane monomer at a flow rate, including e.g. 75-125sccm (table 4), the organosilane monomer being injected into the plasma in at least between the hollow-cathode plasma generating electrodes of each electrode pair of the first plasma source (0064-0065); and depositing a water repellent coating on the fabric substrate's surface by exposing the fabric substrate to the plasma of the first plasma source (0066-0067).
EP 170 generally discloses plasma treating fabrics for forming a water repellant coating; however, fails to disclose using the hollow cathode plasma as claimed. However, Gladish, also in the art of treating fabrics for forming a water repellant coatings (0025, 0030) and discloses treating the textiles using known plasma processes, including hollow cathode (0102) and thus taking the references collectively, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified EP 170 to use hollow cathode plasma with a reasonable expectation of predictable results.
As for the specifics of the hollow cathode plasma, EP 538 discloses the use of linear hollow cathode plasma for treating and coating web substrates of various materials and surface treatments (i.e. pretreatment and post treatment) (0003, 0016, 0023, 0027,0083, 0084) and discloses provides ability to treat larger substrate surface as well as multipart batch coatings using the linear plasma source (0003). EP 538 discloses using AC generator (0022, 0025). EP 538 discloses plasma source including electrode that include outlets for direction the plasma towards the substrate, wherein the outlets have a distance (Figure 1 and accompanying text). Therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified EP 170 to use the linear hollow cathode plasma as suggested by EP 538 to treat the roll to roll textile as EP 170 discloses water repellent coatings via plasma deposition onto textiles (including multibatch or web, roll to roll) with a reasonable expectation of success and predictability as Gladish specifically discloses using hollow cathode plasma for treating textiles.
EP 538 discloses the power density per linear meter that overlaps and makes obvious the claimed power densities and thus makes obvious such(0060).
The combination of prior art fails to explicitly disclose the flow rate of the plasma generating gas as claimed; however, the flow rate of the plasma forming gas and coating forming gas would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to be a result effective variable, directly affecting the plasma process (too little gas would not generate a plasma nor a sufficient coating) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum flow rates, through routine experimentation, to achieve the desired pretreatment and coating formation via hollow cathode plasma deposition.
At the very least, for the sake of compact prosecution, the flow rate of the plasma gas and the coating material for hollow cathode plasma is taught by Biquet (see 0036, 500 sccm to 10,000 sccm per linear meter) and using the known flow rates for hollow cathode plasma formation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as such would have led to predictable and successful results. The flow rates of Biquest overlap and make obvious the instantly claimed flow rates. Biquet discloses the DC and DC pulse generating as claimed (0039).
As for the spacing the of the outlets of the first and second electrode, the examiner notes EP 538 discloses plasma source including electrode that include outlets for direction the plasma towards the substrate, wherein the outlets have a distance (Figure 1 and accompanying text). Additionally, Biquet also in the art of hollow cathode plasma, states the distance between the cavity center (and the outlets, i.e. 0079 related to the nozzle outlet centered on the vertical line running through cavity) and discloses the distance is a result effective variable, directly affecting the electron density and discloses using a distance that overlaps and/or is within the claimed range (0075-0079, 85 mm to 160mm or 125 mm). Therefore, initially, using the distance as taught by Biquet would have been obvious as such is taught as providing an ascertainable result and using such would have been obvious. At the very least, Biquet explicitly discloses that the adjustment is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have determined the optimum distance between the cavity and openings, through routine experimentation, to provide the plasma with the desired electron density.
EP 170 discloses the carrier gas and plasma generation gas for the plasma polymerization is He, an Ar or a mixture of He and Ar (0046, 0048-0058 “any mixture of these”). EP 170 discloses Ar and He as plasma generating gas and discloses using any mixture of these; however, fails to explicitly disclose the ratio as claimed.
However, Kim et al. also in the art of plasma deposition of HMDS, an organosilane monomer, via a plasma generating gas and discloses the He/Ar mixture is used to generate a plasma (“He/Ar was used as the discharge gas”) and discloses using 2 slm of Helium and 600 sccm of Argon (see e.g. “He(2slm)/Ar(600sccm)”). Here, the 2 slm of He converts to 2000 sccm. Kim discloses a range of 3.33 He to Ar (2000 He to 600 Ar). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified EP 170, who discloses using gas of a mixture of He and Ar, and use the ratio as disclosed by Kim, as both references are concerned with plasma generating gas and organosilanes. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie” inside ranges disclosed by prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 191 USPQ 90. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2: EP 170 discloses exposing the fabric substrate to the plasma of the second plasma source, before depositing the water repellent coating on the fabric substrate's surface by exposing the fabric substrate to the plasma of the second plasma source (pretreatment, see 0083-00110). EP 170 discloses a second plasma source for a surface activation of said fabric substrate; injecting a second plasma generating gas in the second plasma source's pair of (0094-0099); supplying a second electrical power to the second plasma source, so that a second power density of the plasma is between 5 kW and 15 kW per unit plasma of the second plasma source (00105), and activating the fabric substrate's surface by plasma treating (see 00094).
As for the explicit power, EP 170 discloses a range that overlaps the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such and additionally discloses that the power is adjustable to achieve the pretreatment (0108) and as such determining the power for pretreatment would have been obvious through routine experimentation as EP 170 explicitly discloses the adjustment would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also EP 538 discloses the power density per linear meter that overlaps and makes obvious the claimed power densities and thus makes obvious such (0060).
As for the flow rate of the second plasma generating gas, the flow rate of the plasma forming gas and coating forming gas would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to be a result effective variable, directly affecting the plasma process (too little gas would not generate a plasma) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum flow rates, through routine experimentation, to achieve the desired pretreatment via hollow cathode plasma. Additionally, the flow rate of the plasma gas and the coating material for hollow cathode plasma is taught by Biquet (see 0036, 500 sccm to 10,000 sccm per linear meter) and using the known flow rates for hollow cathode plasma formation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as such would have led to predictable and successful results. The flow rates of Biquet overlap and make obvious the instantly claimed flow rates.
As for the spacing the of the outlets of the first and second electrode, the examiner notes EP 538 discloses plasma source including electrode that include outlets for direction the plasma towards the substrate, wherein the outlets have a distance (Figure 1 and accompanying text). Additionally, Biquet also in the art of hollow cathode plasma, states the distance between the cavity center (and the outlets, i.e. 0079 related to the nozzle outlet centered on the vertical line running through cavity) and discloses the distance is a result effective variable, directly affecting the electron density and discloses using a distance that overlaps and/or is within the claimed range (0075-0079, 85 mm to 160mm or 125 mm). Therefore, initially, using the distance as taught by Biquet would have been obvious as such is taught as providing an ascertainable result and using such would have been obvious. At the very least, Biquet explicitly discloses that the adjustment is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have determined the optimum distance between the cavity and openings, through routine experimentation, to provide the plasma with the desired electron density.
Claim 3: EP 170 discloses various organosilane monomers that read on the instant claims and makes obvious the instant claim (see 0038-0041, see e.g. Y1-X-Y2, see also formula II which reads on “b” as specifically claimed, see also hexamethyldisiloxane, hexamethyldizilazane, among other specifically described in those paragraphs).
Claim 4: EP 170 discloses outgassing of the fabric substrate (0083-0085).
Claim 5: EP 170 discloses the fabric substrate is a fabric on a roll, treated in a roll-to-roll process (0030, wont to a roll, 0086, roll of fabric, 0130 “roll-to-roll”).
Claim 6: EP 170 discloses the second plasma generating gas comprises an N2, an O2, a mixture of O2 and N2 (see 0095-0097).
Claim 9: EP 170 discloses fabric substrate is exposed to the plasma of the second plasma source during a time of e.g. 15 seconds which does not overlap but abuts the claimed range and thus makes obvious such. Additionally, EP 170 discloses that the time of the pretreatment depends on various factors, including the monomer and adhesion between substrate and the coating (0093, 0098) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pretreatment time through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of providing the desired and optimum adhesion.
Claim 10: EP 170 discloses the flow rate of organosilane monomer to plasma generating gas that overlaps the range as claimed (0047) and thus makes obvious “at least 1”.
Claim 11: EP 170 discloses a temperature that is 30-60C, which overlaps the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such (Table 6) : The process according to claim 1, wherein a temperature of the fabric substrate is at most 40° C.
Claims 12 and 14: EP 170 discloses plasma polymerization of the finished garment (0068, see claim 3 regarding confectioning)
Claim 13: EP 170 discloses the process is performed at a working pressure of e.g. 50 mTorr or 30 mTorr (within the range as claimed) or a range that fully encompasses/overlaps the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such (0075).
Claim 15: Kim discloses a range of 3.33 He to Ar (2000 He to 600 Ar). Kim discloses a ratio that is within the range as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie” inside ranges disclosed by prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 191 USPQ 90. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16: Kim discloses a range of 3.33 He to Ar (2000 He to 600 Ar) and therefore abuts the range as claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights