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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaki (US 2005/0282034) in view of Iwasawa (WO 2014/104354 see translation for citation)
Regarding claim 1, Hayasaki teaches a method of forming a plasma-resistant coating film, the method comprising:
(a) forming a lower coating layer (5) on a target object (4) by depositing a first rare-earth metal compound powder through a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process [0060][0101], fig. 3b;
(b) transferring a second rare-earth metal compound powder [0087];
and (c) forming an upper coating layer (6) by thermal spraying the transferred second rare-earth metal compound powder onto the lower coating layer (5) formed in the (a) forming (Fig. 3b, [0099-0101],
wherein each of the first rare-earth metal compound powder (Y203, [0060]) and the second rare-earth metal compound powder (Y2O3, [0087]) is selected from the group consisting of yttria (Y203),
wherein the first rare-earth metal compound powder has the same components as the second rare- earth metal compound powder (Y203; [0087],[0060]) and
Hayasaki teaches the upper coating layer (corrosion resistant film 6) is thermally sprayed onto the lower coating layer (PVD Corrosion resistant film 5). Hayasaki describes the thermal spraying method as a material …, that is melted by means of a heat source such as plasma, is sprayed from a nozzle in the form of fine particles and is caused to deposit and solidify on the surface of a base material made of ceramics or a metal, so as to form the corrosion resistant coating or the corrosion resistant layer. [0007] Upon solidification of the sprayed material energy is released as heat and absorbed the lower layer. Additionally the energy of the impact from the sprayed material hitting the lower coating layer is absorbed by the lower layer Therefore Hayasaki teaches the lower coating layer (5, fig. 3b) receives energy applied to the target object from the second rare-earth metal compound during step c (thermally sprayed corrosion resistant film 6).
Hayasaki does not teach forming an upper coating layer by aerosol deposition.
Iwasawa recognizes the deposition of yttria by plasma spraying and aerosol deposition [0035],[0054],[0095]. Iwasawa teaches that the yttria coating deposition by aerosol deposition is at most a superior coating because it has a dense structure compared to a yttria sprayed film [0025]. Additionally the coating of Iwasawa has the probability of producing less particles than a sprayed film. Iwasawa teaches that is was well known in the coating of yttria for a plasma resistant coating member to have used either thermal spraying or aerosol deposition to form the yttria coating [0025],[0035]. The teachings of Iwasawa would have at least presented a recognition of equivalency in the prior art and would have presented strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one method for the other in a process of forming the yttria coating. The substitution of equivalents requires no express suggestion. See MPEP 2144.06. II.
The Examiner takes the position It would be inherent to Iwasawa’s aerosol deposition that the substrate of Iwasawa receives energy applied to the target object from the yttria being deposited because aerosol deposition accelerates particles towards the substrate for deposition which they impact to form a coating.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of forming the upper coating layer of Hayasaki by providing the upper coating layer is formed by aerosol deposition, as taught by Iwasawa, because one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and because it would have provided a dense plasma resistant coating higher in plasma resistance than a sprayed film [0025].
Regarding claim 2, Hayasaki teaches the physical vapor deposition (PVD) process is one selected from among thermal deposition, electron beam evaporation, and sputtering (Fig. 4, [0056], [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayasaki teaches the lower coating layer has a thickness of 100 microns or less at [0049] and gives a specific example thickness of 10 microns at [0121]. Therefore Hayasaki provides a range that overlaps Applicant’s range ([0049],[0121]). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Hayasaki teaches the second rare-earth metal compound powder has a median diameter (D50) in a range of 0.1 to 10 m [0087].
Regarding claim 5, Hayasaki teaches the upper coating layer has a thickness of 500 microns or less [0093]. Therefore the prior art provides a range that overlaps Applicant’s range of 1 to 30 um, as such a prima facie case for obviousness has been made. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments traverse the rejection under 35 USC 112. Therefore those rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Iwasawa and Hayasaki are not combinable for the obviousness inquiry because they are directed to provided a rough and smooth films respectively.
The Examiner does not agree because Hayasaki teaches a surface roughness of 1 micron or less (claim 6) which appears to be on the order roughness as that of prior art Iwasawa. Hayasaki makes comparison of its invention with rougher surfaces. Therefore the Examiner finds that each of the prior art are directed to smooth surfaces with neither reference frustrating the intended purpose of the other.
Applicant argues that Iwasawa does not recognize aerosol and spray deposition as equivalents.
The Examiner disagrees because the prior art Iwasawa teaches applying a yttria coating with aerosol and spray deposition. Therefore it recognizes that each method is interchangeable to apply plasma resistant coatings.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights