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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 31-60 are pending in the current application.
Claims 57-60 are withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 31-56) in the reply filed on 3/27/26 is acknowledged.
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 35 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 35 recites the broad recitation beads, and the claim also recites ‘in particular glass beads and/or corundum beads’ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minamitani (JP H07185871A).
As to claim 31, Minamitani discloses a method of providing a reaction chamber for a laser evaporation system with a wall section and inner surface facing a reaction volume (English translation abstract: laser beam machining chamber; figure 1) comprising:
Assembling the chamber with the at least one wall section (figure 1: chamber 13 with four wall sections; while not disclosing a specific assembly step, any step involving fabrication or creation of the completed chamber which necessarily occurred is the ‘assembly’ step);
Treating the at least one wall section for enhancing absorption or dispersive reflectivity of the inner wall surface (English translation ‘example 7’ section paragraph describing figure 9: increasing diffusion by reflection of inner walls by roughening by sand blasting).
As to claim 32, Minamitani discloses a chamber with a chamber wall with a blasted surface, as discussed above. While Minamitani does not disclose the details of when the blasting method is applied, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the definition of ‘assembling’ is the definition of ‘the process of building’ the chamber. Therefore, the steps of building the chamber, including the blasting of its wall, necessarily happens simultaneously with the building of the chamber and claim 32 is anticipated by Minamitani.
As to claims 33-34, Minamitani discloses enhancing a roughness of the inner wall surface by sand blasting (English translation ‘example 7’ section paragraph describing figure 9).
Claim(s) 31-32, 36, 50-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhoa (US 20210355581).
As to claim 31, Zhao discloses a method of providing a reaction chamber for a laser evaporation system with a wall section and inner surface facing a reaction volume (abstract: laser assisted deposition chamber; figure 1) comprising:
Assembling the chamber with the at least one wall section (figure 1: chamber 140; paragraph 66: chamber assembly with walls to define chamber);
Treating the at least one wall section for enhancing absorption or dispersive reflectivity of the inner wall surface (paragraph 114 and paragraph 377: chamber wall containing absorption coating).
As to claim 32, Zhao discloses a chamber with a chamber wall containing a coating, as discussed above. While Zhao does not disclose the details of when the coating is applied, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the definition of ‘assembling’ is the definition of ‘the process of building’ the chamber. Therefore, the steps of building the chamber, including forming the coating on its wall, necessarily happens simultaneously with the building of the chamber and claim 32 is anticipated by Zhao.
As to claim 36, Zhao discloses the treatment of the wall is a coating of an inner surface with an absorption layer (paragraph 114, 377).
As to claim 50, Zhao discloses cooling means provided within the chamber walls (paragraph 107).
As to claim 51, Zhao discloses a cooling structure within the walls which is necessarily provided during chamber assembly as it is part of the chamber (paragraph 107).
As to claim 52 and 56, Zhao discloses providing cooling within the walls for dissipating laser heat thus assisting absorption (paragraph 107).
As to claim 53-55, Zhao discloses hollow chamber walls [a duct] for cooling gases and/or liquids (paragraph 107: hollow walls for cooling with water as cooling medium).
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.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamitani as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Stiens (US 20160053372).
As to claim 35, Minamitani discloses formation of a roughened surface by sand or grit blasting, but is silent as to the details of the process including the grit blasting material composition or size.
Stiens discloses a method of bead blasting in which 106-150 micron corundum grains are used (table 5, samples 5-6), and in which the resulting properties including texture and strength are measured and controlled (paragraph 74: control of resulting properties).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific material and sizes as disclosed by Stiens, in the method of Minamitani, because this allows for control over the resulting properties formed by the blasting.
Claim(s) 37-40, 42-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, as applied to claim 31 and 36 above, and further in view of Kang (US 20150147482).
As to claim 37, Zhao discloses formation of a coating on the interior wall of the chamber to increase absorption, as discussed above, but is silent as to details of the coating mechanism.
Kang discloses a method of forming a coating on interior surfaces of a reaction chamber by providing a reactive gas to the chamber (paragraph 69: use of reactive gases to form coating) to form a conformal coating to prevent contamination (abstract; paragraph 2), the coating including aluminum oxide (paragraph 39: aluminum walls, paragraph 3: formation of oxides including metal oxides, [aluminum oxide as the exemplary material in the instant specification]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reactive gases, as disclosed by Kang, in the method of Zhao, because his allows for formation of a conformal protective coating to prevent contamination.
As to claim 38, Kang discloses using oxygen to form oxides of the wall (paragraph 3, paragraph 73).
As to claim 39-40, Kang discloses the reactive fluid is molecular oxygen, oxygen plasma, and/or ozone (paragraph 73: oxygen and/or ozone gases; paragraphs 4-5, 8-9: formation by using plasma of reactive gases).
As to claims 42-44, Kang discloses providing reaction gases to a chamber (paragraph 69; figure 1, 5a). Therefore, the chamber will necessarily be completely filled [which encompasses the partially filled requirement as well] as gases fill the container they are in by definition.
As to claim 45, Zhang discloses a target material is heated by a laser (figure 1: laser source 160 directed at surface 150 [target, necessarily heated by exposure to laser without near perfect mirroring] and the chamber contains oxygen (paragraph 100/155).
As to claims 46-47, Kang discloses the wall is aluminum (paragraph 37; Al having a conductivity of approximately 120 W/mK, depending on the specific type).
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kang, as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Campbell (US 5421891).
As to claims 48-49, Zhao and Kang disclose knowledge processing chambers with walls, as discussed above, but are silent as to the thickness of the walls.
Campbell discloses a processing chamber in which the wall thicknesses are set to 250 mm [25cm] (col 17 lines 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chamber wall thickness as disclosed by Campbell, in the system of Zho in view of Khang because this allows for a chamber with functional walls.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kang, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Peter (US 5618575).
As to claim 41, Kang discloses formation of a metal oxide coating by using reactive oxides including oxygen and ozone, as discussed above, but is silent as to specific ratios of oxygen and ozone.
Peter discloses a method of depositing metal oxides in which the vaporized metal, oxygen and ozone ratios are controlled to obtain the desired oxidation degree of the film as ozone provides higher oxidation rates (col 9 lines 38-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use varying oxygen/ozone ratios, including the requisite 9:1, because this allows for control over the oxidation rate and ultimate stoichiometry of the film formed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights