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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 February 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 21 and 23 are 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 21 recites the limitation “wherein the mask abuts the plane of deposition.” The specification does not describe the limitation 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 had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. The specification at [0072] describes positioning the mask between the nozzle, including optimizing a distance between the mask and the substrate, which assumes a distance between the mask and the substrate. The specification as originally filed does not describe a mask abutting (i.e. making contact with) a plane of deposition.
Claims 10, 13, and 19-21 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “essentially the same functional properties.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what properties are considered to be “functional properties” or what properties are excluded from the term. Moreover, since a raw material and an array of structures with a dimension of less than 100 microns formed from the raw material via cold spray necessarily have different functional properties at least by virtue of one being in a form which allows it to be fed to a sprayer and another being in a form which does not and which provides other functions, they clearly do NOT have the same functional properties, making it difficult to understand what the phrase “essentially the same functional properties” is supposed to include and to exclude. Examiner considers “essentially the same functional properties” to include the interpretation that at least some properties can be considered essentially the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “enhanced magnetization.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, because it is not clear what it requires or what is considered “enhanced.” Examiner considers the limitation to include either magnetization or a change in magnetization.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “surface configured to provide a templated shape to the structure.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, because it is not clear what it means for a surface to be so configured. The limitation is interpreted to include any surface upon which a composition can be formed.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the mask abuts the plane of deposition.” It is not clear what is meant by a mask abutting a plane of deposition. Claim 21 was previously rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter, because it recited the limitation “the mask abuts the substrate along the plane of deposition.” It is not clear whether the limitation is intended to mean the same thing as the previously rejected claim, where the plane of deposition includes a substrate, without actually reciting “the substrate” or whether it means something else. The specification at [0072] describes positioning the mask between the nozzle, including optimizing a distance between the mask and the substrate, which assumes a distance between the mask and the substrate. The specification as originally filed does not describe a mask abutting (i.e. making contact) a plane of deposition. Since the mask is a distance from the substrate, it is not clear what is meant by abutting any plane, since “abut” means to make contact. It is not clear whether the limitation has in mind a mask metaphorically touching a geometrical concept (“plane”) or something else. Examiner considers the limitation limited to the mask being placed some distance between the mask and the substrate as described in the specification.
Claim 20 is rejected as depending from rejected claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 21, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al. (US 2018/0274104) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593).
Regarding Claim 7, Reznik teaches a method, comprising: positioning a mask between a cold spray nozzle and a substrate; and forming a structure on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle, wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Abstract; Figs. 6-7; [0045,0051]). US’104 fails to teach that the structure has at least 98% of a theoretical density of the raw material from which the structure is formed.
Regarding Claim 21, Reznik et al. (US’104) teach a method, comprising: positioning a mask between a cold spray nozzle 15 and a substrate 11 ; and forming a structure 20 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle thereby depositing the raw material along a plane of deposition (Fig. 3), wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Figs. 6-7), wherein the mask abuts (“laying a mask with an opening on the component”) the plane of deposition (the plane of the mask where deposition is occurring) (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0045,0051]). US’104 fails to teach a theoretical density of at least 98%. Bousa (WO’593) is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and suggests that an advantage of cold spraying is that materials can be sprayed with a theoretical density of 99%, which impacts the quality of a sprayed coating (p. 4, fourth paragraph; p. 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process of US’104 by cold spraying at 99% theoretical density, because WO’593 suggests cold spraying provides a layer with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts quality of a sprayed coating.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12,15-16,18, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593).
Regarding Claim 7, Sampath et al. (US’743) teaches a method comprising positioning a mask (“elongate strip of flexible aperture material having at least one opening defined therein”) between a cold spray nozzle 100 and a substrate 102 (Figs. 1,3; [0020,0016,0037]) and forming a structure 112 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle, wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Fig. 1; [0040]). US’743 fails to teach that the structures have greater than 98% (or greater than 98%, Claim 11) of a theoretical density of the raw material. Bousa (WO’593) is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and suggests that an advantage of cold spraying is that materials can be sprayed with a theoretical density of 99%, which impacts the quality of a sprayed coating (p. 4, fourth paragraph; p. 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process of US’743 by cold spraying at 99% theoretical density, because WO’593 suggests cold spraying provides a layer with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts quality of a sprayed coating.
Regarding Claim 8, the formed structure has a feature size in at least one dimension of 20 microns as measured along a plane of deposition of the structure (width)[0039].
Regarding Claim 9, US’743 teaches structures with at least one dimension of between 20-200 micron, including 20 micron [0039-0040]. US’743 fails to teach an aperture size. However, US’743 teaches that the size of an aperture member can be altered and clearly suggests that it should be of a size which will produce features with at least one dimension in the range of 20-200 microns (Fig. 1; [0057-0058]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’743 in view of WO’593 with an aperture with at least one dimension similar in size to that of the feature it is meant to aid in depositing, including a size of less than 100 microns.
Regarding Claim 10, US’743 teaches that the structure has essentially the same functional properties as the raw material (e.g. metal, electrical properties: conductive, resistive, dielectric, insulative; magnetic properties) (Claims 36,37, 45;[0011]).
Regarding Claim 12, US’743 teaches that the mask has dimensions configured to impose shape anisotropy on a structure or structures (e.g. line) (Figs. 6A-B; [0039-0040, 0058-0059]).
Regarding Claim 15, US’743 fails to teach a particle size. US’743 would have at least suggested a particle size less than a size of a feature (e.g. 20 micron) which comprises it. WO’593 teaches a particle size between 1-32 micron (Examples 1, 2, 4, 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’743 to have an average diameter of particles of the raw material cold sprayed onto the structure at about 10 microns or less, because the range of claimed average particle size substantially overlaps with the suggested particle size. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the average particle size to achieve a desired coating density and/ or surface roughness.
Regarding Claim 16, US’743 teaches that the mask can be formed as a metal sheet or a tape (e.g. continuous elongated flexible plastic or metallic sheet or strip) [0016,0063].
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, US’743 teaches a method comprising positioning a mask (“elongate strip of flexible aperture material having at least one opening defined therein”) between a cold spray nozzle 100 and a substrate 102 (Figs. 1,3; [0020,0016,0037]) and forming a structure 112 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle, wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Fig. 1; [0040]). Additionally, US’743 teaches that a mask does not require contact with the substrate [0008] and reads, “as the aperture 110 does not contact the substrate 102, the substrate need not be planar. This allows for deposits on substrates of complex geometries without requiring a conformal mask being deposited on the surface of the substrate.” This teaching suggests a) that conformal masks that contact a surface of the substrate (i.e. a mask which abuts a substrate) were known at the time of invention and b) that in the case of planar substrates, a mask which abuts the plane of deposition (Fig. 1 shows a planar base which can be said to abut a plane where deposition is occurring) can be used to deposit the coating. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of the combination of references. US’743 fails to teach that the structures have at least 98% of a theoretical density of the raw material. WO’593 is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and suggests that an advantage of cold spraying is that materials can be sprayed with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts the quality of a sprayed coating (p. 4, fourth paragraph; p. 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process of US’743 by cold spraying at 99% or more theoretical density, because WO’593 suggests cold spraying provides a layer with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts quality of a sprayed coating.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Zahiri (WO 2018/232451).
Regarding Claim 13, US’743 teaches patterning conductive structures by cold spraying conductive materials [0011,0044,0067]. The combination of US’743 in view of WO’593 fails to teach superconductive materials. Zahiri (WO’451) is analogous art in the field of patterning materials, including conductive materials, by cold spraying [043-044,064], with applications in electronics and superconductivity [064]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’743 in view of US’593 by including superconducting material in the raw material, because WO’451 suggests an application in which superconducting materials are deposited in patterns by cold spraying. Because the mask provides a shape to the materials, it “defines” a demagnetization tensor of superconducting material, which depends on a superconducting structure’s shape.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Angermann (US 2017/0301851).
Regarding Claim 14, US’743 teaches forming multilayer structures of electrical circuits with a variety of electrical or magnetic properties (e.g. conductive, insulative, capacitive, resistive, and magnetic) by cold spraying (Claim 36; [0011,0044]). The combination of US’743 in view of WO’593 fails to teach performing the process to produce a thermoelectric structure. Angermann (US’851) is analogous art in the field of forming electrical structures by cold spraying and suggests depositing p- and n-type thermoelectrics by patterning them in a sequence by cold spraying and forming conductive connection layers (Fig. 1; [0034,0039]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’743 in view of WO’593 by sequentially depositing p- and n-type thermoelectrics and forming conductive connection layers, because US’851 suggests cold spraying a sequence of p- and n-type materials to form a thermoelectric element and at least one conductor path element. Moreover, it is prima facie obvious to modify the process of the combination of references by depositing the materials sequentially or simultaneously. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Gambino et al. (US 2005/0033819).
Regarding Claim 17, US’743 does not particularly limit substrate material or properties. US’743 fails to teach a flexible substrate. Gambino et al. (US’819) is analogous art in the field of depositing features by cold spraying material onto a substrate (Figs. 1-2A; [0041]) and suggests depositing material onto a flexible substrate to form electronics [0048]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’743 in view of US’523 by depositing structures onto a flexible substrate, because US’819 suggests cold spraying material onto a flexible substrate to produce electronics.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0132602).
Regarding Claim 19, Sampath et al. (US’743) teach a method, comprising forming a templated structure on a substrate by cold spraying a raw material onto the substrate, wherein the substrate has a surface configured to provide a templated shape to the structure (Abstract; Figs. 1,3,4,6A-B; [0055,0058,0020,0037,0042]). US’743 fails to teach that predefined areas on the surface of the substrate are roughened. Sun et al. (US’602) is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and pertinent to Applicant’s problem of forming an adherent coating on a substrate (Abstract). US’602 suggests roughening the surface of a substrate before cold spraying to improve adhesion of the coating [0036]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’743 by roughening predefined areas on the surface of substrate according to the templated shape, because US’602 suggests roughening areas of the substrate to which coating will be applied by cold spraying, and apertures of US’743 define those areas.
Regarding Claim 20, US’743 teaches that a structure includes a change in composition along a thickness thereof (Claim 37).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Reznik et al. (US 2018/0274104) and Bousa (WO 2008/141593).
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, US’743 teaches a method comprising positioning a mask (“elongate strip of flexible aperture material having at least one opening defined therein”) between a cold spray nozzle 100 and a substrate 102 (Figs. 1,3; [0020,0016,0037]) and forming a structure 112 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle, wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Fig. 1; [0040]). Additionally, US’743 teaches that a mask does not require contact with the substrate [0008] and reads, “as the aperture 110 does not contact the substrate 102, the substrate need not be planar. This allows for deposits on substrates of complex geometries without requiring a conformal mask being deposited on the surface of the substrate.” This teaching suggests a) that conformal masks that contact a surface of the substrate (i.e. a mask which abuts a substrate) were known at the time of invention and b) that in the case of planar substrates, a mask which abuts the plane of deposition can be used to deposit the coating. However, because US’743 fails to explicitly teach a mask abutting a plane of deposition, US’104 is additionally cited as analogous art for cold spraying structures using a mask between a substrate and a cold spray nozzle, which also teaches a mask abutting a plane of deposition. US’104 teaches a method, comprising: positioning a mask between a cold spray nozzle 15 and a substrate 11; and forming a structure 20 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle thereby depositing the raw material along a plane of deposition (Fig. 3), wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Figs. 6-7), wherein the mask abuts (“laying a mask with an opening on the component”) a plane of deposition since the mask is in a geometric plane is space where deposition occurs (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0045,0051]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’743 with a mask abutting the plane of deposition, because US’104 is analogous art which suggests cold spraying structures using a mask which abuts a plane of deposition to deposit raw a material along a plane of deposition.
The combination of US’743 in view of US’104 fails to teach a theoretical density of at least 98% or at least 99%. Bousa (WO’593) is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and suggests that an advantage of cold spraying is that materials can be sprayed with a theoretical density of 99%, which impacts the quality of a sprayed coating (p. 4, fourth paragraph; p. 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process of the combination of US’743 in view of US’104 by cold spraying at 99% theoretical density, because WO’593 suggests cold spraying provides a layer with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts quality of a sprayed coating.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0132602) as applied to Claim 19 above, and further in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of US’743 in view of US’602 fails to teach a structure with at least 98% theoretical density of the raw material. WO’593 is analogous art in the field of cold spraying and suggests that an advantage of cold spraying is that materials can be sprayed with a theoretical density of 99%, which impacts the quality of a sprayed coating (p. 4, fourth paragraph; p. 5, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the process of the combination of US’743 in view of US’602 by cold spraying at 99% theoretical density, because WO’593 suggests cold spraying provides a layer with a theoretical density of at least 99%, which impacts quality of a sprayed coating.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampath et al. (US 2002/0012743) in view of Bousa (WO 2008/141593) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Reznik et al. (US 2018/0274104).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of US’743 in view of WO’593 fails to teach that the structure grows along at least a portion of the aperture during forming. Reznik et al. (US’104) is analogous art for cold spraying structures using a mask between a substrate and a cold spray nozzle, which also teaches a mask abutting a plane of deposition. US’104 teaches a method, comprising: positioning a mask between a cold spray nozzle 15 and a substrate 11; and forming a structure 20 on the substrate by cold spraying a raw material from the cold spray nozzle thereby depositing the raw material along a plane of deposition (Fig. 3), wherein the structure has a shape corresponding to an aperture in the mask (Figs. 6-7), wherein the mask abuts (“laying a mask with an opening on the component”) a plane of deposition since the mask is in a geometric plane is space where deposition occurs (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0045,0051]). US’104 shows that a mask that abuts a plane of deposition (i.e. on a plane of a surface of a substrate on which a material is deposited), the deposited structure grows along a portion of the aperture during the forming (Figs. 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention to form the structure by cold spraying such that the cold sprayed structure of the shape of the mask contacting the plane of the surface of a substrate (i.e. plane of deposition) would grow along at least a portion of the aperture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 09 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 21 under 35 USC 102 has been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejection of Claim 21. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 09 February 2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 21 and 23 under 35 USC 112(a), the rejections of Claims 10, 13, and 19-21 under 35 USC 112(b), and the rejections of Claims 7-10, 12-17, and 19-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the amendment of Claim 21 to require that “the mask abuts the plane of deposition” (Remarks, p. 6), the specification as originally filed does not teach the mask abutting (touching, making contact with) anything. Moreover, it is not clear what it means to abut a plane, which is a geometrical concept.
In response to Applicant’s argument concerning his use of “theoretical density” (Remarks, p. 7), the phrase was not found to be indefinite in the previous Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the indefiniteness of the phrase “essentially the same functional properties” that certain paragraphs of Applicant’s specification (e.g. [0079]) describe various functional properties that are caried over from the raw material to the structure (Remarks, p. 8), Applicant argument that the structure has A or SOME properties as the raw material is not within the scope of Claim 10 which requires that the structure has essentially the same functional properties as the raw material. Claim 10 does not clearly require only that certain properties of the structure are the same or “essentially the same,” but that the structure has essentially the same properties. That is, Applicant’s Claim 10 is indefinite as ambiguous, because the claim is not clear whether it means that the functional properties are essentially the same or that there is at least one functional property which is the essentially the same. Moreover, it is not clear what the scope of “essentially” is.
In response to Applicant’s argument concerning the limitation “the mask defines a demagnetization tensor” (Remarks, pp. 8-9), the issue is moot with Applicant’s amendment.
In response to Applicant’s argument that paragraph [00162] of the present application explains “enhanced magnetization.” Neither the argument nor the indicated paragraph adequately defines the scope of the term “enhanced” or provides sufficient guidance for determining whether magnetization is enhanced or not enhanced.” For example, [00162] reads “significantly enhanced magnetization” making it unclear how to distinguished “magnetization” from “enhanced magnetization” or “enhanced magnetization” from “significantly enhanced magnetization.” The relative and vague term “enhanced” provides insufficient definition or guidance.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the combination of references, and in particular US’523 fails to teach at least 98% or at least 99% theoretical density (Remarks, pp. 11-15), Bousa (WO 2008/141593) is now cited as evidence of the obviousness of this theoretical density.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Zahiri fails to teach defining a shape that provides the recited demagnetization tensor (Remarks, p. 15), the coating will necessarily or obviously have a shape and as explained the shape of the superconducting materials will necessarily or obviously have a demagnetization tensor associated with it due to the properties of a superconducting material in some (i.e. any) shape. Claim 13 does not require a specific shape which provides a specific demagnetization tensor and “enhanced magnetization” is ambiguous.
In response to Applicant’s argument concerning roughening (Remarks, pp. 18-19), because Sun suggests that roughing improves adhesion of cold sprayed material and Sampath suggests patterned spraying of material, it would have been obvious to roughen those places where material is actually sprayed to improve adhesion in those areas. In other words, it would have been obvious to omit roughening in those places where cold spraying does not occur, since the function of adhesion is not required there.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Corbeil et al. (US 2015/0197858) (mask cold spraying)
Verrier (US 2015/0246371) (cold spraying with a mask on a substrate)
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712