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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley (“Surface etching of YBCO films by xenon difluoride”).
Regarding claims 15, 18; Crossley teaches an apparatus for passivation of a cuprate body (abstract; fig. 1) comprising a vessel for placing the cuprate body (etch chamber; fig. 1), a valve for admitting XeF2 into the etch chamber (V5; page 1607, fig. 1). Crossley additionally teaches that the YBCO is exposed to the XeF2 for 90 s (page 1607). It would have been obvious to provide a timer for controlling the duration of the exposure as Crossley teaches a prescribed duration of the exposure.
Additionally, it appears that the apparatus of Crossley would be able to perform the method of claim 1 as the structure of the apparatus of claim 15 is taught by Crossley as described above. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Crossley teaches a valve for admitting XeF2 as discussed above. It appears that the valve would be able to admit a predetermined aliquot absent a showing to the contrary. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to configure the valve to be able provide an aliquot as Crossley teaches providing gas “pulses” (page 1607). Additionally, it appears that a timer would be able to control the duration sufficient for displacing the second atoms of oxygen. See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Chevereau (US 5853726).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 15 and 18.
If Crossley fails to teach a timer for controlling the duration of exposure, Chevereau will be applied herein.
Chevereau teaches an apparatus for providing gaseous exposure to a substrate (abstract; col. 2, lines 1-12) comprising a timer for the purpose of timing exposure (col. 2, lines 1-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a timer in Crossley in order to time exposure as taught by Chevereau.
Claim(s) 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Farrell (US 5934885).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 15 and 18.
If Crossley fails to teach a valve for admitting a predetermined aliquot of XeFe2, Farrell will be applied herein.
Farell teaches an apparatus for reacting reagents (abstract) wherein a valve is provided for separating a reagent into aliquots for the purpose of reacting a specific amount of reagent with another reagent (col. 6, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a valve separating a reagent into aliquots in Crossley in order to react a specific amount of reagent with another reagent as taught by Farell.
Claim(s) 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Chevereau and Farrell (US 5934885).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 15 and 18.
If Crossley fails to teach a valve for admitting a predetermined aliquot of XeFe2, Farrell will be applied herein.
Farell teaches an apparatus for reacting reagents (abstract) wherein a valve is provided for separating a reagent into aliquots for the purpose of mixing a specific amount of reagent with another reagent (col. 6, lines 1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a valve separating a reagent into aliquots in Crossley in order to react a specific amount of reagent with another reagent as taught by Farell.
Claim(s) 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Ershag (US 2010/0031571).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 16 and 19, but fails to teach a hatch for placing/removing the cuprate body in the vessel.
Ershag, however, teaches an apparatus for carrying out a chemical reaction (abstract) wherein the vessel chamber comprises a hatch for removing material in the chamber (para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel chamber comprises a hatch in Crossley in order to remove material in the chamber as taught by Ershag.
Additionally, it appears that the hatch would be able to provide for placing and removing the cuprate substrate.
Claim(s) 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Chevereau and Ershag (US 2010/0031571).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 16 and 19, but fails to teach a hatch for placing/removing the cuprate body in the vessel.
Ershag, however, teaches an apparatus for carrying out a chemical reaction (abstract) wherein the vessel chamber comprises a hatch for removing material in the chamber (para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel chamber comprises a hatch in Crossley in order to remove material in the chamber as taught by Ershag.
Additionally, it appears that the hatch would be able to provide for placing and removing the cuprate substrate.
Claim(s) 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Farell and Ershag (US 2010/0031571).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 16 and 19, but fails to teach a hatch for placing/removing the cuprate body in the vessel.
Ershag, however, teaches an apparatus for carrying out a chemical reaction (abstract) wherein the vessel chamber comprises a hatch for removing material in the chamber (para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel chamber comprises a hatch in Crossley in order to remove material in the chamber as taught by Ershag.
Additionally, it appears that the hatch would be able to provide for placing and removing the cuprate substrate.
Claim(s) 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossley in view of Chevereau and Farell and Ershag (US 2010/0031571).
Crossley teaches an apparatus as described above in claims 16 and 19, but fails to teach a hatch for placing/removing the cuprate body in the vessel.
Ershag, however, teaches an apparatus for carrying out a chemical reaction (abstract) wherein the vessel chamber comprises a hatch for removing material in the chamber (para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the vessel chamber comprises a hatch in Crossley in order to remove material in the chamber as taught by Ershag.
Additionally, it appears that the hatch would be able to provide for placing and removing the cuprate substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights