DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on February 23, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 6 were amended. Claims 4, 8, 12 and 14-17 were canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued September 26, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 and 6, the limitation “a value ‘L’ of 80 of greater as a colorimetric measurement value” should be corrected to include that the value is expressed by CIELAB colorimetric system for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitations of ‘a’ value and ‘b’ value should be corrected to include that the values are expressed by CIELAB colorimetric system for the sake of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-13 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (KR102266655B1) in view of Hayasak (US20080292890).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method of producing a yttrium-based thermal spray coating (abstract, paragraph0019). Kim teaches to spray yttrium based granular powder containing a mixture of yttrium compound and silica powder by atmospheric plasma spraying process to form the coating on a substrate (paragraphs 0021-0022), wherein the yttrium compound is selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12, YAlO3 (paragraphs 0022 and 0041), and the silica is in 0.1 to 10 wt% of the granular powder mixture (paragraphs 0028 and 0053), which is inside of the claimed range. Kim teaches the plasma output in a range of 40 to 50kw, which is inside of the claimed range (paragraph 0086). Kim teaches the yttrium compound is yttrium oxide contains monoclinic crystal structure with 14, 28, 17 and 22 percent (see figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, paragraphs 0096), which is inside of the claimed range. Kim further teaches the level of monoclinic crystal structure governs the bonding strength between the yttrium oxide powders, thereby contributing to the pore size within the spray coating (paragraphs 0078 and 0096). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of monoclinic crystal structure (wt%) of the yttrium oxide in the coating in the process to yield the desired bonding strength between the yttrium oxide powders and pore size within the spray coating. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Kim does not explicitly teach the yttrium based thermal spray coating has a value L of 80 or greater as a colorimetric measurement value under a plasma exposure condition. However, Kim teaches black is undesired color for the yttrium coating of the semiconductor chamber as it indistinguishable from the semiconductor process contaminants, and such coating was under the plasma exposure during the semiconductor processing (paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and optimize the color of the coating (which also optimize the value L) to yield a coating with color other than black under the plasma condition so the semiconductor contaminates are easily distinguishable for cleaning in light of the teaching of Kim (paragraph 0018). Regarding the limitations of the plasma exposure condition and when the L value is being measured, those limitations are not positively recited as part of the method steps being performed, but rather a condition associated with measurement of a property. Since Kim teaches black color (low L value; and white color has L value being close to 100) in the chamber coating cannot be distinguished from contaminants in the semiconductor process, there is a high risk of unnecessary additional cleaning processes due to confusion during chamber cleaning (paragraph 0018), it would be obvious that Kim intended the coating to be light in color, which is higher in L number, after the exposure to plasma conditions so the coating can be distinguished from the contaminants, including the conditions as claimed; thus the teaching of Kim would also optimize the L number in the claimed plasma conditions (measurement conditions).
Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed silicon at% in the yttrium based thermal spray coating. However, Hayasaki teaches a method of making forming a coating with corrosion resistance against plasma on the surface of a chamber component, wherein the coating contains yttrium oxide and 0.001 to 3% by weight of silicon (abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0016 and 0075), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Hayasaki teaches if Si content is too low, the effect of improving the sintering performance of the thermally sprayed corrosion resistance would not be achieved; if Si content is too high, the thermal sprayed corrosion resistant film would have too low purity and the corrosion resistant would decrease (paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of the silicon in the yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating in the process to yield the desired sintering performance, purity and corrosion resistance level. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the amount of Si in yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating as suggested by Hayasaki in the method of Kim because Hayasaki teaches such concentration of silicon provide the coating with desired sintering performance and corrosion resistance level (paragraph 0073). Regarding to the L value limitation, in addition to optimization as discussed above, it is also the position of the examiner that property value L as a colorimetric measurement after a plasma exposure condition of the coating (associated with the color of the coating), is inherent, given that the method and material (atmospheric plasma spraying a powder mixture of yttrium compound, selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12 or YAlO3, and silica, wherein silica is in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt%, yttrium compound powder and silica powder have an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm, the plasma gas contain an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, the plasma output is 40-50 kW, spraying distance is 120 to 230mm, feed rate of the powder is 10 to 30g/min, and the porosity of the coating is less than 2% and the monoclinic form wt% of the yttirum oxide, and the silicon at% in the coating) (paragraphs 0021-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032 and 0086, figures 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d of Kim, and paragraph 0073 of Hayasaki) disclosed by Kim in view of Hayasaki and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the granular powder is formed by mixing the yttrium compound powder with an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm and the silica powder with an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm (paragraphs 0028 and 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the atmospheric plasma spraying process uses a plasma gas containing an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, which is inside of the claimed range (paragraphs 0023, 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the atmospheric plasma spraying process uses a spray unit is placed at a distance of 120 to 230mm with respect to the substate and a feeder have a feed rate of 10 to 30 g/min, which are inside of the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a method of producing a yttrium-based thermal spray coating (abstract, paragraph 0019) wherein the coating comprising yttrium, oxygen and yttrium oxide (paragraphs 0031, 0089-0090). Kim teaches the yttrium coating is yttrium oxide contains monoclinic crystal structure with 14, 28, 17 and 22 percent (see figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, paragraphs 0096), which is inside of the claimed range. Kim further teaches the level of monoclinic crystal structure governs the bonding strength between the yttrium oxide powders, thereby contributing to the pore size within the spray coating (paragraphs 0078 and 0096). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of monoclinic crystal structure (wt%) of the yttrium oxide in the coating in the process to yield the desired bonding strength between the yttrium oxide powders and pore size within the spray coating. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Kim does not explicitly teach the yttrium based thermal spray coating has a value L of 80 or greater as a colorimetric measurement value under a plasma exposure condition. However, Kim teaches black is undesired color for the yttrium coating of the semiconductor chamber as it indistinguishable from the semiconductor process contaminants, and such coating was under the plasma exposure during the semiconductor processing (paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and optimize the color of the coating (which also optimize the value L) to yield a coating with color other than black under a plasma exposure condition so the semiconductor contaminates are easily distinguishable for cleaning in light of the teaching of Kim (paragraph 0018). Regarding the limitations of the plasma exposure condition and when the L value is being measured, those limitations are not positively recited as part of the steps being performed to make the coating, but rather a condition associated with measurement of a property. Since Kim teaches black color (low L value; and white color has L value being close to 100) in the chamber coating cannot be distinguished from contaminants in the semiconductor process, there is a high risk of unnecessary additional cleaning processes due to confusion during chamber cleaning (paragraph 0018), it would be obvious that Kim intended the coating to be light in color, which is higher in L number, after the exposure to plasma conditions so the coating can be distinguished from the contaminants, including the conditions as claimed; thus the teaching of Kim would also optimize the L number in the claimed plasma conditions (measurement conditions).
Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed silicon at% in the yttrium based thermal spray coating. However, Hayasaki teaches a method of making forming a coating with corrosion resistance against plasma on the surface of a chamber component, wherein the coating contains yttrium oxide and 0.001 to 3% by weight of silicon (abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0016 and 0075), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Hayasaki teaches if Si content is too low, the effect of improving the sintering performance of the thermally sprayed corrosion resistance would not be achieved; if Si content is too high, the thermal sprayed corrosion resistant film would have too low purity and the corrosion resistant would decrease (paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of the silicon in the yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating in the process to yield the desired sintering performance, purity and corrosion resistance level. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the amount of Si in yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating as suggested by Hayasaki in the method of Kim because Hayasaki teaches such concentration of silicon provide the coating with desired sintering performance and corrosion resistance level (paragraph 0073). Regarding to the L value limitation, in addition to optimization as discussed above, it is also the position of the examiner that property value L as a colorimetric measurement after a plasma exposure condition of the coating (associated with the color of the coating), is inherent, given that the method and material (atmospheric plasma spraying a powder mixture of yttrium compound, selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12 or YAlO3, and silica, wherein silica is in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt%, yttrium compound powder and silica powder have an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm, the plasma gas contain an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, the plasma output is 40-50 kW, spraying distance is 120 to 230mm, feed rate of the powder is 10 to 30g/min, and the porosity of the coating is less than 2% and the monoclinic form wt% of the yttirum oxide, and the silicon at% in the coating) (paragraphs 0021-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032 and 0086, figures 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d of Kim, and paragraph 0073 of Hayasaki) disclosed by Kim in view of Hayasaki and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Regarding claim 9, the porosity of the coating is less than 2% (paragraphs 0032 and 0079).
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed silicon at% in the yttrium based thermal spray coating. However, Hayasaki teaches a method of making forming a coating with corrosion resistance against plasma on the surface of a chamber component, wherein the coating contains yttrium oxide and 0.001 to 3% by weight of silicon (abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0016 and 0075), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Hayasaki teaches if Si content is too low, the effect of improving the sintering performance of the thermally sprayed corrosion resistance would not be achieved; if Si content is too high, the thermal sprayed corrosion resistant film would have too low purity and the corrosion resistant would decrease (paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of the silicon in the yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating in the process to yield the desired sintering performance, purity and corrosion resistance level. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the amount of Si in yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating as suggested by Hayasaki in the method of Kim because Hayasaki teaches such concentration of silicon provide the coating with desired sintering performance and corrosion resistance level (paragraph 0073).
Kim teaches black is undesired color for the yttrium coating of the semiconductor chamber as it indistinguishable from the semiconductor process contaminants, and such coating was under the plasma exposure during the semiconductor processing (paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and optimize the color of the coating (which also optimize the value a an b) to yield a coating with color other than black under a plasma exposure condition so the semiconductor contaminates are easily distinguishable for cleaning in light of the teaching of Kim (paragraph 0018).
In addition, it is also the position of the examiner that the a value and b value of the colorimetric measurement values and color, is inherent, given that the method and material (atmospheric plasma spraying a powder mixture of yttrium compound, selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12 or YAlO3, and silica, wherein silica is in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt%, yttrium compound powder and silica powder have an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm, the plasma gas contain an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, the plasma output is 40-50, spraying distance is 120 to 230mm and feed rate of the powder is 10 to 30g/min, the porosity of the coating is less than 2% and the spray coating contains silicon of less than 0.1 at%, and the monoclinic form wt% of the yttirum oxide, and the silicon concentration in the coating) (paragraphs 0021-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032 and 0086, figures 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d of Kim, and paragraph 00073 of Hayasaki) disclosed by Kim and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed silicon at% in the yttrium based thermal spray coating. However, Hayasaki teaches a method of making forming a coating with corrosion resistance against plasma on the surface of a chamber component, wherein the coating contains yttrium oxide and 0.001 to 3% by weight of silicon (abstract, paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0016 and 0075), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Hayasaki teaches if Si content is too low, the effect of improving the sintering performance of the thermally sprayed corrosion resistance would not be achieved; if Si content is too high, the thermal sprayed corrosion resistant film would have too low purity and the corrosion resistant would decrease (paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the amount of the silicon in the yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating in the process to yield the desired sintering performance, purity and corrosion resistance level. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the amount of Si in yttrium oxide corrosion resistant coating as suggested by Hayasaki in the method of Kim because Hayasaki teaches such concentration of silicon provide the coating with desired sintering performance and corrosion resistance level (paragraph 0073).
Kim teaches black is undesired color for the yttrium coating of the semiconductor chamber as it indistinguishable from the semiconductor process contaminants, and such coating was under the plasma exposure during the semiconductor processing (paragraphs 0003 and 0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and optimize the color of the coating (which also optimize the value a an b) to yield a coating with color other than black under a plasma exposure condition so the semiconductor contaminates are easily distinguishable for cleaning in light of the teaching of Kim (paragraph 0018).
In addition, it is also the position of the examiner that the a value and b value of the colorimetric measurement values and color, is inherent, given that the method and material (atmospheric plasma spraying a powder mixture of yttrium compound, selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12 or YAlO3, and silica, wherein silica is in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt%, yttrium compound powder and silica powder have an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm, the plasma gas contain an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, the plasma output is 40-50, spraying distance is 120 to 230mm and feed rate of the powder is 10 to 30g/min, the porosity of the coating is less than 2% and the spray coating contains silicon of less than 0.1 at%, and the monoclinic form wt% of the yttirum oxide, and the silicon concentration in the coating) (paragraphs 0021-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032 and 0086, figures 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d of Kim, and paragraph 00073 of Hayasaki) disclosed by Kim and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not explicitly teach the yttrium based thermal spray coating has a main peak value of 29.1º or higher obtained by XRD analysis. However, it is the position of the examiner that a main peak value, is inherent, given that the method and material (atmospheric plasma spraying a powder mixture of yttrium compound, selected from Y2O3, YOF, YF3, Y4Al3O9, Y3Al5O12 or YAlO3, and silica, wherein silica is in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt%, yttrium compound powder and silica powder have an average diameter of 0.1 to 10µm, the plasma gas contain an inert gas flow rate of 40 to 60 NLPM, the plasma output is 40-50, spraying distance is 120 to 230mm and feed rate of the powder is 10 to 30g/min, and the porosity of the coating is less than 2%) (paragraphs 0021-0023, 0025, 0028, 0032 and 0086) disclosed by Kim and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/457,392 in view of Kim (KR102266655B1) in view of Hayasaki (US20080292890). Claims 1-7 of 18/457,392 overlap with the instant claims except the atmospheric plasma spraying (claim 1 only), monoclinic form wt%, silicon at% and the conditions for measuring the L value, however, those features are disclosed by Kim in view of Hayasaki (see rejections above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. IBE (US20190203329, paragraphs 0016 and 0038).
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights