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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "hard-to-adhere material" in the claim. It is unclear what the meets and bounds are of what materials are “hard to adhere.” Examiner interprets broadly, and suggests clarification via amendment of the claim to disclose what the actual “hard-to-adhere material(s)” are. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "process gas containing any one or two or more among…" in the claim. It is unclear if the process gas contains one or more, or two or more among the gases listed; one or two or more is confusing. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a modification step of, through a reaction caused by the contact" in the claim. It appears that the modification step is the same as the plasma step which includes bring the process gas into contact with the treatment target as part of the reaction. It is unclear how the two steps are separate. Examiner interprets the steps as together as one step. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "and providing any one among a carbon atom, a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom or a molecule containing one or more of these atoms" in the claim. It is unclear if the options are providing an atom from the list, or a molecule containing the atoms (from the list?). Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the treatment target has a film shape" in the claim. It is unclear what a “film shape” is defined as. Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP5152784B2 to Atsushi in view of US 20180376577 to Nakano.
Claim 1: Atsushi discloses a method for surface-modifying a treatment target made of a hard-to-adhere material containing a fluorine atom, the method comprising: a plasma step of activating a process gas (para. [0025]) containing any one or more among carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, water vapor, ethanol, propanol, hexanol, ethylene glycol, and ammonia by plasma and bringing the process gas into contact with the treatment target (S [fluororesin sheet], para. [0021-0022]); and
a modification step of, through a reaction caused by the contact, adjusting a residual ratio of fluorine atoms on a surface of the treatment target and providing any one among a carbon atom, a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom or a molecule containing one or more of these atoms to the surface of the treatment target (para. [0031]).
However the method of Atsushi does not explicitly disclose the ratio of to 60% or less of a residual ratio before the contact.
Nakano teaches reducing the density of fluorine atoms on a film surface to an amount that is lower than before treatment (para. [0077]) for the purpose of being surface modified to have a greater free energy and improve adhesiveness (para. [0078], [0080]).
With respect to claims…., Nakano discloses an optimized reduction that isn’t absolute, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as energy and substrate parameters. Absent evidence showing such criticality use of the claimed reduced fluorine atoms via similar process parameters would have been prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reducing fluorine atoms to an optimized amount that is lower than before contact, as taught by Nakano with motivation to be surface modified to have a greater free energy and improve adhesiveness.
Claim 2: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano discloses wherein the plasma step includes: a generation step (para. [0028], Fig. 1, Atsushi) of generating plasma discharge near atmospheric pressure by applying an electric field to an interelectrode space (between 14 and 12) defined by a pair of electrodes (14/12),
a supply step of supplying the process gas to the interelectrode space (between 14 and 12), and a contact step of bringing the process gas having passed through the interelectrode space or having passed through the interelectrode space into contact with the treatment target (S, para. [0030, 0033]).
Claim 3: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano does not disclose wherein an amount of energy input in the plasma step is 0.9 J/cm² to 135.0 J/cm² per unit area of the surface of the treatment target.
Nakano discloses wherein an amount of energy input in the plasma step is 0.9 J/cm² to 135.0 J/cm² per unit area of the surface of the treatment target (9 [fluorine-based resin film], Fig. 1, para. [0051] equivalent to W/(cm2⋅sec) for the purpose of avoiding damage to the film by electrical field or heat (para. 0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy requirements as taught by Nakano with motivation to avoid damage to the film by electrical field or heat.
Claim 4: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano discloses wherein the plasma step includes a step in which the treatment target (S, Fig. 1, Atsushi) passes through in the interelectrode space (between 12 and 14, para. [0017]).
Claim 6: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano discloses wherein the treatment target (S) has a film shape (Fig. 1, Atsushi), the pair of electrodes (12, 14) includes a hot electrode (12 [impression electrode]) disposed facing the ground electrode (14 [earthed electrode]), and the plasma near the atmospheric pressure is generated between the ground electrode and the hot electrode (para. [0028]).
Nakano teaches a roll-shaped ground electrode (11 [roll electrode], Fig. 1, para. [0041]) and in the plasma step, the treatment target is conveyed in contact with the ground electrode (para. [0041-0044]), for the purpose of being an option as a pair of electrodes configuration (para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the roll-shaped ground electrode and contact as taught by Nakano with motivation to be an option as a pair of electrodes configuration.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi in view of Nakano as applied to claims 1-4, 6 above, and further in view of US 20130084409 to Vangeneugden.
Claim 5: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano does not explicitly disclose wherein a peak-to-peak voltage of a voltage applied to between the pair of electrodes is 3 kVpp to 25 kVpp, and a frequency is 10 kHz to 70 kHz.
Nakano teaches wherein a peak-to-peak voltage of a voltage applied to between the pair of electrodes is 3 kVpp to 25 kVpp (para. [0104] which is inside the claimed range), for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient adhesion strength for the film surface (para. [0124]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the peak-to-peak voltage requirement as taught by Nakano with motivation to obtain a adhesion strength for the film surface.
Vangeneugden teaches a frequency is 10 kHz to 70 kHz (para. [0138]), for the purpose of significantly reducing uncontrolled plasma treatment of the film surface (para. [0031]) and/or reducing contamination of the electrodes (para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the frequency requirements as taught by Vangeneugden with motivation to reduce uncontrolled plasma treatment of the film surface and/or reduce contamination of the electrodes.
Claim 7: The method of Atsushi in view of Nakano does not explicitly disclose wherein the plasma step includes a step of applying a pulse wave-like voltage to between the pair of electrodes to generate pulse plasma near atmospheric pressure in the interelectrode space.
Vangeneugden teaches wherein the plasma step includes a step of applying a pulse wave-like voltage to between the pair of electrodes to generate pulse plasma near atmospheric pressure in the interelectrode space (para. [0138-0139]) for the purpose of significantly reducing uncontrolled plasma treatment of the film surface (para. [0031]) and/or reducing contamination of the electrodes (para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pulse requirements as taught by Vangeneugden with motivation to reduce uncontrolled plasma treatment of the film surface and/or reduce contamination of the electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718