DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not include support for the shield comprising a polymer.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (EP0217399) in view of Biberger (2016/0030910).
Thompson teaches an apparatus for depositing a coating, see p1, lines 7-10 and Figs. 1-3, the apparatus comprising
- a plasma jet generator (32) comprising a jet outlet (212)
- a nozzle comprising an adaptor (64’) and replaceable shield (12’), the shield comprising a jet inlet, nozzle outlet and sidewall as defined by the respective positions within the cross line of the figures (particularly along the direction of arrows in Fig. 1),
- the adaptor is configured for attaching and reattaching, see p12, lines 7-12.
In regard to the shield comprising an insulating material – the claimed material is not limited and any material would be understood to have some “insulating” properties.
In regard to the sidewall comprising at least one precursor inlet – the teachings, while including a plasma gun, are silent. Biberger, however, teaches that it is useful to have a precursor supply (216 per Fig. 2) on the nozzle of a plasma spray gun to treat a substrate [0067]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the precursor supply of Biberger to the spray gun apparatus of Thompson as another option for supplying a gas to the plasma spray gun.
Regarding claim 2, the flange is the portion that protrudes off of 34’ and the retaining wall is 132.
Regarding claim 3, the shield is monolithic as presented.
Regarding claim 5, the shield has a non-planar edge per p4, lines 16-20.
Regarding claim 7, the system includes cooling channels (see 26/28).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the system has an opening large than the opening of the jet outlet, as per Fig. 3, and per the same figure, has a tapered portion (along the centerline of the nozzle, see any figure).
Regarding claim 12, all elements of the nozzle kit are taught as per above, including the generator, nozzle and shields. Wherein multiple shields are claimed – the prior art teaches replacing them in any case and therefore suggests multiple shields.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson and Biberger (2016/0030910) in view of Asokan (2008/0253040).
The teachings of Thompson are described above, the teachings do not include that the shield comprises polymer. Asokan teaches, however, that is operable to form a plasma gun of polymer (abstract). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the shields of the plasma gun of Thompson of polymer as Thompson is silent and Asokan teaches that polymer is an operable material. As per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson and Biberger (2016/0030910) in view of Dorier (8,001,927).
The teachings of Thompson are described above, the teachings do not include that the shield has a flow disturbing elements, however Dorier teaches an analogous system (see Fig. 2) and col 6, lines 20-35 with penetration grooves in order to create turbulence. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the disturbing elements as taught by Donier for the reasons noted as a modification of the system of Thompson. Further to claim 11, the shield and nozzle are connected and the homogenization means are the same elements.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson and Biberger in view of Swallow (WO03/085963).
The teachings of Thompson are described above, the teachings generally include treatment of a substrate (background) but no specifics. However Swallow teaches an analogous system and that it is useful to treat substrates in a continuous manner [0004] and also Figures. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to include the continuous substate of Swallow in the system of Thompson as Thompson generally teaches treating a substrate but offers no details, it would be obvious to carry out the further structure of Swallow. As per Thompson (figures), the nozzle shield has an edge – in regard to the distance, that is a matter of the use of the apparatus and therefore not limiting to the claimed structure of the apparatus. The apparatus of Thompson could be held any distance from a substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights