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 .
Claim Interpretation
The term “incompatible” as recited in claim 1 (and also in claims 4 and 5) has been interpreted in view of Specification para 0048 stating ““Incompatible” elements and alloys, as used herein, cannot practicably be mixed in their respective amounts and used to fabricate (e.g., by casting, forging, or powder pressing) a solid structure of the cathode 200 (e.g., the main body 202 or an insert 218 of the cathode 200) having sufficient strength and/or ductility to withstand mechanical loads experienced during manufacture and/or use of the cathode without prematurely breaking apart (i.e., failing)”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 25 objected to because of the following informalities: amended claim 1 recites “an insulated insert being substantially entirely received in the central opening, the insulated insert […], wherein the insulated insert is formed from an insulating material configured to reject the electric arc recessed surface and drive the electric arc away from the insulating insert” (emphasis added), however “the insulating insert” (emphasis added) should instead be “the insulated insert” (emphasis added) for consistency. Claims 7 and 25 are also objected to for reciting “the insulating insert” and should similarly be amended for consistency.
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 30 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.
New claim 30 (dependent on new claim 28) recites “the recessed surface on a first side and which opens to the end surface on a second side” (emphasis added), and new claim 28 recites “the recessed surface on a first side and which opens to the end surface on a second side” (emphasis added). There is no support for distinct ‘first and second sides’ in claim 30 from the ‘first and second sides’ of claim 28.
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 1-5, 7-11, 21-23, and 25-31 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation "the central opening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is indefinite as to whether “the central opening” is intended to refer back to “the centrally located opening” of claim 1 as new claims 28-31 also recite, or to a distinct ‘central opening’ thereof . Claims 2-5, 7-11, 21-23, and 25-31 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 21-23, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramalingam (US 5,298,136) in view of Yu (KR 19990002342, machine translation cited below) and Lechthaler (US 2013/0220800).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 25, Ramalingam discloses in figs. 13-14 a cathode [140] for use in arc coatings (i.e. claimed “ion deposition process”) (col. 9, lines 19-68; col. 10, lines 1-22); figs. 13-14 depict the cathode [140] comprises: a main body defining a working surface thereof and fabricated from a first deposition material, and plural “inserts” [141A]-[141F] coupled to the main body of the cathode [140] and spaced from a center region, wherein the inserts [141A]-[141F] each are at least partially exposed at the working cathode surface (as shown in fig. 14), and the inserts [141A]-[141F] has at least one that includes a second deposition material different from the first deposition material (col. 9, lines 17-27 and 46-50; claim 28). Ramalingam further discloses the first and second materials are vaporizable via electric arc generated at the working cathode surface (as further shown in fig. 14 as “arc path” [152]) to deposit a coating of an alloy or compound (col. 9, lines 46-68; col. 10, lines 1-6). Since the first deposition material of the cathode [140] is structurally distinct and separate from the second deposition material of the inserts [141A]-[141F], the second deposition material is considered as “incompatible” with the first deposition material.
However Ramalingam is limited in that the cathode comprising the main body defining a “sunk working surface” for the working cathode surface is not suggested.
Yu teaches a cathodic arc source including a cathode comprising a main body defined by either a conventional flat surface in fig. 2 (similar to Ramalingam’s figs. 13-14) or a “recessed surface” (i.e. claimed “sunk working surface”) in figs. 1 and 3-5 (p. 2 and 4); figs. 1 and 3-5 each show the sunk working surface includes an “arc emission preventing wall” [111a],[113a],[114a] defining: a peripheral edge; a recessed surface [111s],[112s],[113s],[114s] in a center region and lower than the peripheral edge; a downwardly-extending surface extending between the peripheral edge and the recessed surface [111s],[112s],[113s],[114s]; an end surface formed opposite the sunk working surface; and a side edge extending between the peripheral edge and the end surface (p. 2-4). Yu cites the advantages of the sunk working surface including the arc emission preventing wall as stably controlling an arc flow generated on a target surface to improve efficiency of target metal, performance of a coating film, and coating efficiency (p. 1 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the sunk working surface and the arc emission preventing wall of Yu into the main body of Ramalingam to gain the advantages of stably controlling an arc flow generated on a target surface to improve efficiency of target metal, performance of a coating film, and coating efficiency.
However the combination of references Ramalingam and Yu is further limited in that a centrally located opening for an insulated insert positioned in the center region of the recessed surface is not suggested.
Lechthaler teaches in figs. 1-3 an electrically conductive target plate (i.e. cathode) [1] with a working surface [2] of either ceramic or metallic for an arc deposition source and an end surface (Abstract; para 0001-0002), similar to the cathode and arc deposition source of Ramalingam and Yu. Lechthaler further depicts in figs. 1-3 a “cover” (i.e. claimed “insulated insert”) [3] of a “non-conductive material” positioned in a central area (i.e. center region) [6] of the cathode [1] and separate from an outer surface (e.g. location of the inserts [141A]-[141F] from Ramalingam) (para 0022-0025), where the insulated insert [3] is capable of having a cathode spot of an electric arc avoid the central area [6] of the working surface [2] while constraining the cathode spot of the electric arc over the working surface [2] outside the central area [6] (e.g. rejects the electric arc at the central area [6] of the working surface [2] and driving the electric arc away from the insulated insert [3]) (para 0021-0023); fig. 3 further shows the insulated insert [3] has: 1) a lower portion thereof being substantially entirely received within a centrally located opening of the center region [6], and/or 2) as a whole being substantially entirely received within a centrally located opening of the center region [6] (para 0025), since the term “substantially” is a broad term (MPEP 2173.05(b), III, D). Lechthaler cites the advantage of the insulated insert [3] as reducing localized warming which forms microfissures (para 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the insulated insert [3] of Lechthaler into a centrally located opening in the center region of the recessed surface and separate from the inserts [141A]-[141F] of the combination of references to gain the advantage of reducing localized warming and microfissures.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, and Lechthaler has: Ramalingam depicting in figs. 13-14 two inserts [141B],[141E] are arranged and spaced circumferentially at the recessed surface (of Yu) of the cathode [140] (col. 19-27 and 51-62).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, modified Ramalingam further discloses the inserts [141A]-[141F] are each made of different materials (col. 9, lines 19-23), thus the second deposition material of at least one of the inserts [141A]-[141F] is different than a third deposition material of a second one of the inserts [141A]-[141F]. Since the first deposition material of the cathode [140] is structurally distinct and separate from the third deposition material of the second one of the inserts [141A]-[141F], the third deposition material is considered as “incompatible” with the first deposition material.
With respect to claim 7, Lechthaler further teaches the insulated insert [3] is capable of facilitating controlling movement of the cathode spot of the electric arc generated at the working surface [2] (para 0021-0023), wherein the insulated insert [3] is made of either Al2O3 or boron nitride (para 0022).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, modified Ramalingam further suggests that depositions materials are selectable from titanium (Ti) and zirconium (Zr) (col. 9, lines 19-24; col. 10, lines 2-6; col. 12, lines 2-5); thus the first and second deposition materials are suggested to respectively be Ti and Zr, or Zr and Ti.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, modified Ramalingam further depicts in figs. 13-14 each of the inserts [141A]-[141F] is retained in a corresponding opening (each formed in the recessed surface [111s], [112s],[113s],[114s] of the sunk working surface shown in Yu’s figs. 1 and 3-5) in the main body of the cathode [140] via friction fit against cylindrical walls of each corresponding opening (col. 9, lines 19-21; claim 28).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, and Lechthaler has: Ramalingam depicting in figs. 13-15 each corresponding opening (containing each of the inserts [141A]-[141F]) extends through the working surface (e.g. Yu’s recessed surface) and through the end surface of the main body.
With respect to claim 22, modified Ramalingam further suggests in figs. 13-15 at least one of the inserts [141A]-[141F] includes: a length equal to a length of the main body; and a surface of the at least one of the inserts [141A]-[141F] extending to the end surface of the main body.
With respect to claim 23, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, Lechthaler has: Ramalingam further suggesting in figs. 1-2 and 14 the exposed portions of the two inserts [141B],[141E] (Ramalingam col. 4, lines 31-36; col. 9, lines 19-21; claim 28) to be flush with the working surface (e.g. Yu’s recessed surface).
With respect to claim 26, Yu further teaches in figs. 1 and 3-5 a distance between the downwardly-extending surface and peripheral edge is less than 50% of a diameter of the sunk working surface (p. 2-4).
With respect to claim 27, Yu further teaches in figs. 1 and 4 the downwardly-extending surface includes a chamfered configuration and is angled with respect to the recessed surface [111s], [112s],[113s],[114s] peripheral edge within an angle range between 10-80o (p. 2-4).
With respect to claim 28, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, Lechthaler has: Lechthaler depicting in figs. 1 and 3 the centrally located opening comprises a cylindrical bore having an opening at the working surface (e.g. Yu’s recessed surface) on a first side and which opens to the end surface of a second side.
With respect to claims 29 and 30, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, Lechthaler has: Ramalingam further depicts in figs. 13-14 each of the inserts [141A]-[141F] is substantially entirely received in a corresponding second opening (each formed in the recessed surface [111s], [112s],[113s],[114s] of the sunk working surface shown in Yu’s figs. 1 and 3-5), wherein figs. 13-14 depict each of the corresponding second openings spaced from the center region, and each of the corresponding second openings comprise a cylindrical bore which opens to the working surface (e.g. Yu’s recessed surface) on the first side and opens to the end surface on the second side.
With respect to claim 31, the combination of references Ramalingam, Yu, Lechthaler has: Lechthaler showing in figs. 1 and 3 the centrally located opening of the insulated insert [3] at the center region having a first diameter of about half a diameter of the cathode [1] (para 0018 and 0025); and Ramalingam showing in figs. 13-14 the corresponding second openings for the inserts [141A]-[141F] (col. 9, lines 19-21), wherein fig. 13 shows each of the corresponding second openings (for each of the inserts [141A]-[141F]) having a second diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the center region; thus the second diameter of each of the corresponding second openings is smaller than the first diameter of the centrally located opening of Lechthaler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-7 filed 1/26/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 6 has been canceled; the previous rejection is moot.
103 Rejections
On p. 6-7, Applicant argues that Lechthaler does not teach in figs. 1-3 the claimed feature of “insulated insert being substantially entirely received in the central opening” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as fig. 3 shows a lower portion of the insulated insert [3] being received “substantially entirely” in the central opening of the cathode [1] (para 0025). In addition fig. 3 also shows that the insulated insert [3], as a whole, being “substantially entirely” (emphasis added), since the term “substantially” is a broad term (MPEP 2173.05(b), III, D). As such, Lechthaler teaches the claimed feature.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794