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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/23/2024, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims and the addition of new claims 30-42. Claims 26-42 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/23/2024, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner but are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
Applicants argue that there is not proper motivation to reduce the thickness of George. The examiner disagrees and notes the prior art discloses thickness of ALD deposited Al2O3 can be controlled by the ALE method and thus using such to adjust the thickness of the ALD deposited Al2O3 layer would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 requires “depositing an imide or fluorinate organic coating by ALD or MLD”; however, the specification fails to disclose the organic coating deposited by ALD or MLD and thus this is new matter.
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.
Claims 26-31, 33-34, 36-39, 40-42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20030026989 by George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. (Atomic layer deposition of solid lubricating coatings on particles), taken with WO 2017213842, hereinafter WO 842 with US Patent Application Publication 20190267249 by Clark et al.
Claim 26 and 30: George discloses a method of increasing the flowability of a powder (see non-agglomerated, 0027) comprising providing a powder comprising metal particle and exposing to a vacuum and applying an ALD coating thereto (0037-0040, 0025, 0045, example 3). George discloses TMA and water for 25 cycles or 50 cycles to deposit alumina on a metal (0097, 0099) or 50 cycles on non-oxide ceramic (0092).
As for the claimed increase flow factor by at least 10% or in the range of 5 to 40% due to the number of cycles of the ALD process (as required by 30), as outlined above, George discloses the ALD coating provides powder that will not agglomerate, i.e. attach to each other, and discloses they are more easily fluidized (0027-0028) therefore reasonably has an increased flow factor. The degree of flow factor is not specifically articulated; however, the increase in flow factor is specifically attributed to the number of cycles and the materials as claimed. George discloses metal or ceramic particles coated with ALD deposition using 25 or 50 cycles and therefore, as evidenced by claim 28 below, reasonably discloses the same process steps and conditions that are used to achieve the results. Therefore, while the reference does not specifically recognize the increase in flow factor as claimed, it is the examiners position that, since the prior art discloses all the features claimed and disclosed by applicant as being necessary for the claimed increase, the prior art will necessarily have the same results unless the applicant is using specific materials or process parameters that are neither claimed nor disclosed as being required.
As for the flow factor measurement, the method for increasing the flowability (see preamble) is not limited by the method for measuring and therefore since the prior art reasonably disclose the same active process steps to achieve the increase in flowability. As such, the type of tester does not appear to limit the claim scope as drafted. Here the claimed merely require the flow factor is such that it is measurable and the examiner maintains that the particles of George as in fact measurable as claimed.
George discloses forming gas or hydrogen is used during ALD deposition to create metal films by ALD process (0056) and/or is used to reduce oxides in the coating (0054) and the powder is a powder mixture of two or more different materials (multilayer coating of two or more different materials).
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Kilbury which discloses measuring the flow factor using a Brookfield cone and plate powder tester with rotary vane attachment (see e.g. page 29, Figure 11 and accompanying text) and discloses the flow of the particles increases (reduced viscosity) and measuring such with the Brookfield and therefore taking the references it would have been obvious to have measured the flow factor as claimed, using a similar device to that as claimed, to evaluate the flowability of the particle with the ALD coating as Kilbury discloses the ALD coatings on particles are known to be measured using a Brookfield flow tester similar to that as claimed.
George alone with Kilbury disclose particle coating using ALD to deposit a Al2O3 coating onto an metal powder; however, fails to disclose the claimed atomic layer etching or reacting a coating on the metal core as claimed. However, WO 842 discloses Al2O3 coatings on particles are known to be reduced in thickness by ALE (methods, discussion) and Clark discloses a known method for Al2O3 etching includes HF (see Figure 6 and accompanying text) to achieve the layer by layer coating thickness reduction. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified George alone with Kilbury, who deposits a Al2O3 layer on a particle to reduce the coating thickness of the particle coating as suggested by WO 842 using ALE and use the HF etchant mechanism as suggested by Clark as a known ALE method of Al2O3. As noted by Clark, ALE of Al2O3 with HF will result in Al-OH groups converting to Al-F groups (as required by Claims 26 and 31) and such ALE will convert the surface groups to oxyfluoride during the removal by ALE (see Figure 6, as required by claims 40-41).
Claim 27 and 29: George discloses TMA and water for 25 cycles or 50 cycles to deposit alumina on a metal (0097, 0099) or 50 cycles on non-oxide ceramic (0092). Here, George discloses depositing multilayer coatings of different materials and therefore makes obvious including a alumina layer as claimed (0062). The ALD process of George will include a reducing step prior to an ALD step (i.e. reducing and oxidation steps).
Claim 28: George discloses TMA and water for 25 cycles or 50 cycles to deposit alumina on a metal (0097, 0099) or 50 cycles on non-oxide ceramic (0092). Here, George discloses depositing multilayer coatings of different materials and therefore makes obvious including a alumina layer as claimed (0062).
Claim 30: As for the claimed increase flow factor by at least 10% or in the range of 5 to 40% due to the number of cycles of the ALD process (as required by 30), as outlined above, George discloses the ALD coating provides powder that will not agglomerate, i.e. attach to each other, and discloses they are more easily fluidized (0027-0028) therefore reasonably has an increased flow factor. The degree of flow factor is not specifically articulated; however, the increase in flow factor is specifically attributed to the number of cycles and the materials as claimed. George discloses metal particles coated by ALD deposition using 25 or 50 cycles and therefore reasonably discloses the same process steps and conditions that are used to achieve the results. Therefore, while the reference does not specifically recognize the increase in flow factor as claimed, it is the examiners position that, since the prior art discloses all the features claimed and disclosed by applicant as being necessary for the claimed increase, the prior art will necessarily have the same results unless the applicant is using specific materials or process parameters that are neither claimed nor disclosed as being required.
Claim 31: George discloses AlN (0030) and therefore reacting to form the Al-N would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 33: George discloses a forming gas is used to reduce oxides in the coating (0054) and using hydrogen during the step of ALD to form a metal coating and prior to sintering (0032).
Claims 34 and 39: George discloses using a powder mixture of two or more different materials (0083) and identical coatings applied thereto (0083, 0099, two or more powders can be the same powder).
Claim 36: George discloses sulfur or boron containing materials (see e.g. 0030).
Claims 37: George discloses the coated particles are encapsulated in an organic polymer, organic coating (0083) and discloses fluoropolymers which read on the broadly required hydrophobic organic coating and fluorinated organic.
Claim 38: ALD by its virtue will adjust the surface chemistry of each particle, including a first material and second material, by a self-limiting nature and thus read on this broadly drafted claim requirement.
Claims 40-41: The combination of references makes obvious the etching to adjust the thickness and form oxyfluoride as discussed above, which would meet the requirements of this claim.
Claim 42: George discloses alumina on the surface of a nickel powder and thus meets this requirement as the melting point of alumina is higher than that of nickel.
Claim 44: George discloses carbon based coating (0063).
Claim 45: George discloses depositing inorganic oxide materials and disclose tungsten metal (0030) and while the reference does not explicitly disclose WO surface, depositing WOx would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the disclosure of George which discloses metal oxides generally and metals including tungsten.
Claims 26-31, 33-34, 36-39 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20030026989 by George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. (Atomic layer deposition of solid lubricating coatings on particles), taken with US Patent Application Publication 20190062914 by King et al. with US Patent Application Publication 20190267249 by Clark et al.
George alone with Kilbury discloses all that is required as set forth above and disclose particle coating using ALD to deposit a coating onto an metal powder; however, fails to disclose the claimed atomic layer etching. However, King discloses coatings on particles by ALD and discloses known treating of particles include ALE (0136) and Clark discloses a known method for Al2O3 etching includes HF (see Figure 6 and accompanying text) to achieve the layer by layer surface treatment. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified George alone with Kilbury with ALE as suggested by King and use the HF etchant mechanism as suggested by Clark as a known ALE method. As noted by Clark, ALE with HF will result in Al-OH groups converting to Al-F groups, including oxyfluoride (as required by Claims 26 and 31) and such ALE will convert the surface groups to oxyfluoride during the removal by ALE (see Figure 6, as required by claims 40-41).
Claims 40-41: The combination of references makes obvious the etching to adjust the thickness and form oxyfluoride as discussed above, which would meet the requirements of this claim.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20030026989 by George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. taken with King and Clark taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20130202790 by Li et al.
George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. taken with King and Clark discloses all that is required by claim 26 as set forth above and disclose particle coating using ALD; however, fails to disclose the tantalum coating. However, Li, also in the art of particle coating via ALD discloses various coating layers by ALD include those as specifically noted by George (i.e. alumina) and discloses other known coatings include those that include tantalum (see Table 1). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have deposited a tantalum material as such are known to be deposited on particles via ALD process.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20030026989 by George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. taken with WO 842 and Clark taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20130202790 by Li et al.
George et al. alone or with Kilbury et al. taken with King and Clark discloses all that is required by claim 26 as set forth above and disclose particle coating using ALD; however, fails to disclose the tantalum coating. However, Li, also in the art of particle coating via ALD discloses various coating layers by ALD include those as specifically noted by George (i.e. alumina) and discloses other known coatings include those that include tantalum (see Table 1). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have deposited a tantalum material as such are known to be deposited on particles via ALD process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 43 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited or reviewed prior art discloses or makes obvious the combination of a tungsten core and carbon core as instantly claimed when viewed in combination with the totality of the claim requirements.
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.
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 on 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