DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 Dorier 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicants arguments are related to the intended use of the object. See particularly the bottom of p9 of the response – related to the manner the device is used with plasma. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The claimed structural components are examined on the basis of the claimed structure and not the effect of the structural parts based on how they are used. The arguments (p10) further point to the specification in regard to communicatively coupled, but no mass flow is required in the apparatus.
Further arguments on p11 are directed to the manner of use of Thompson. Applicants have not pointed out any structural, claimed features not taught by an analogous structure of Thompson.
Applicants argue that the material of Thompson is not insulating but the claim is broadly written with no boundaries on what type or degree of insulative effect is required, a layer of copper, for example, would insulate against direct gas flow or sound.
In regard to the arguments over Biberger, the requirements of the injection port on a “replaceable” shield are not specifically required. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). The rejection is made based on obviousness – so in this case it is understood that the exact same components in each of the references do not match. Applicants have field to set forth that the structures would not be combinable for the reasons stated in the Office Action.
Dependent claims are primarily argued based on the above cited arguments but also further on the intended use. Regarding claim 4, Thomspon directs one to use the argued materials but is not particularly limited – furthermore the claims and art is comprising and multiple materials can be used.
Applicants have overcome the objection to the specification with the amendment.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. 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 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights