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 of Group I and species c in the reply filed on 6/11/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3-12, 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/11/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 2015/0147495 A1).
Kumar teaches a method for applying a coating to the internal surface of a tubular member [0024]. The coating comprises a bonding layer (i.e., a sublayer) such as pure chromium [0015] followed by a hydrophobic layer of diamond like carbon doped with silicon [0010-0013] formed by PECVD [0018]. The PECVD precursors include a silicon dopant precursor (tetramethylsilane) and C2H2 (acetylene) [0019].
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.
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) 1-2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2015/0147495 A1) in view of Azzini (US 2022/0364636 A1) OR Dekempeneer (US 2008/0220257 A1).
Claim 1:
Kumar is discussed above but does not teach a DLC sublayer. However, Azzini teaches an undoped DLC sublayer as an alternative to a chromium sublayer [0043] and Dekempeneer teaches an undoped DLC sublayer for a different DLC superposed layer [0013-0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Kumar and substitute the chromium sublayer with an undoped DLC sublayer because both Azzini and Dekempeneer teach it is suitable to do so when forming a multilayer coating.
Claim 2:
Kumar teaches the coating is less than about 15 microns [0023].
Claims 13-14:
Kumar teaches the PECVD precursors include a silicon dopant precursor (tetramethylsilane) and C2H2 (acetylene) [0019]. It is clear that an undoped DLC layer would be deposited using C2H2 alone, without the doping gas.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2015/0147495 A1) in view of Azzini (US 2022/0364636 A1) OR Dekempeneer (US 2008/0220257 A1) in view of O (JP 2003113470 A) in view of Steinmuller (US 2012/0051192 A1).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the inclusion of nitrogen to alter the sp2/sp3 ratio. However, O teaches a method for coating a substrate with a DLC layer having a gradient of sp2 rich phase near the surface of the substrate graded to a sp3 rich phase near the outer surface (Fig. 1). Additionally, Steinmuller teaches the mechanism for controlling sp2 vs. sp3 includes nitrogen adding [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further grade the DLC layer in the manner taught by O by controlling the nitrogen content in the manner taught by Steinmuller. O states this approach allows the DLC layer to be smoothly formed on substrates other than silicon (abstract).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2015/0147495 A1) in view of Azzini (US 2022/0364636 A1) OR Dekempeneer (US 2008/0220257 A1) in view of Sung (US 2012/0164454 A1).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach an intermediate layer having less silicon dopant relative to the hydrophobic layer. However, Sung teaches a method for forming a DLC multilayer onto the surface of a substrate where the hydrophilic dopant can be graded from a concentration from about 0% to 40% and the gradient can be patterned vertically to achieve a desired function, property, or characteristic [0051]. This vertical patterning in the context of a dopant gradient is the formation of a series of layers having different dopant concentration rather than a traditional continuous gradient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further apply the hydrophobic layer as a series of layers with adjusted dopant concentration to form a vertical patterning of different dopant concentration. Setting one layer to be less than 50% of a superposed layer falls under achieving a desired function, property, or characteristic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights