DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kay et al. (US Pat No 6,722,584 B2).
Re claim 1, Kay et al. show a spray gun (Figs. 1-3) for spray deposition of 2D material onto at least one substrate surfaces surface to form a film configured for subsequent laser patterning or etching of the 2D material into a metamaterial;
wherein the gun comprises:
a housing (10) capable of accepting a propulsion device for propulsion of the 2D material, wherein the housing comprises a detachable section (1, 3 & 4) for accessing an inside of the housing and accommodates a reservoir (space surrounding 11 & space 15) for loading the 2D material to be deposited by spraying; and
a nozzle (6) for directing the 2D material to be sprayed by the gun;
wherein the nozzle (6) includes converging (12) and diverging (14) inner bore sections to enable propulsion of the 2D material at a supersonic speed (col. 3, lines 32-34) to deposit a cohesive multilayer film configured to preserve layer integrity.
Re claim 2, Kay et al. disclose the propulsion device is a device to force gas into the housing at predefined pressures and velocities (col. 3, lines 49-50).
Re claim 4, the claimed invention is that of a spray gun with the intended use of deposition of 2D material onto at least one substrate, this intended use does not constitute a positively recited limitation on the invention to which the limitations of claim 4 do not further impart any positively recited structure required by the claimed invention. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Re claim 5, Kay et al. show a gun (Figs. 1-3) that is capable being hand held.
Re claim 16, Kay et al. show the housing (10) comprises a chamber (surrounding 11) which is connected to an inlet port (9) for connecting to the propulsion device, wherein the nozzle (6) is at an end of the chamber opposite the inlet port (9), the chamber having internal walls shaped to define the reservoir (space surrounding 11 & space 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay et al. (US Pat No 6,722,584 B2).
Re claim 3, Kay et al. disclose a thermal jacket configured to heat the 2D material up to 500 degrees centigrade (col. 3, lines 54-55).
Kay et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the inner bore flow exit diameter is 0.8-1.2 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner bore flow exit diameter be 0.8-1.2 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the exit diameter which achieves the recognized result of providing the divergent characteristics needed to impart supersonic velocities to the spray (col. 3, lines 30-34), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keicher et al. (US Pat No 10,058,881 B1) in view of Kay et al. (US Pat No 6,722,584 B2) and further in view of Rapp et al. (DE 10349472 A1).
Re claim 6, Keicher et al. show a system comprising a gun (Fig. 1) and a laser (col. 7, lines 5-14) for laser patterning or etching the material into a metamaterial.
Keicher et al. does not teach the gun according to claim 1 or the gun and the laser are housed in a unit and are separated by a rotatable sample holder, wherein the rotatable sample holder is securable in a lasing position and a spraying position..
However, Kay et al. disclose the gun according to claim 1 (see above).
The substitution of one known element (spray gun in Keicher) for another (spray gun as shown in Kay) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the spray nozzle shown in Kay et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a spray nozzle in Keicher et al. to produce a spray (Keicher – abstract; Kay et al. – abstract).
Further, Rapp et al. show two output devices (Fig. 1, 3 & 9) as a unit that are separated (6) by a rotatable sample holder (1/2), wherein the rotatable sample holder is securable in one position (under 3) and in another position (under 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the nozzle of Keicher et al. as modified by Kay et al. with the rotatable sample holder of Rapp et al. so that all surfaces of the target area and the surface to be coated cyclically change between the two subspaces (paragraph 0007).
Re claim 7, Keicher et al. as modified by Kay et al. and Rapp et al. disclose a UV laser (Keicher – col. 7, lines 7-8).
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirmalraj (US Pat No 10,307,789 B2) in view of Kay et al. (US Pat No 6,722,584 B2).
Re claim 8, Nirmalraj disclose a method of kinetic spray depositing to deposit a 2D material onto a substrate surface (abstract), the method comprising:
providing a spray gun (Fig. 6) including a housing (610), a reservoir (630) and a nozzle (620) according to claim 1;
providing 2D material (Fig. 3, 360) in the reservoir of the spray gun, wherein the 2D material comprises a single layer material (Fig. 2, 240) or a Van der Waals material (col. 4, lines 10-13);
using a propulsion device (Fig. 6, 650) to direct a flow of gas through the reservoir to lift the 2D material into the gas flow;
directing the gas flow containing the 2D material through the nozzle (620) of the spray gun (610); and
directing the accelerated 2D material towards the substrate surface (660) to cause an impact of the 2D material against the substrate surface.
Nirmalraj does not teach a nozzle including converging and diverging inner bore sections as claimed in claim 1 to enable supersonic speeds.
However, Kay et al. a nozzle including converging and diverging inner bore sections as claimed in claim 1 to enable supersonic speeds (see above).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle in Nirmalraj) for another (nozzle as shown in Kay) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the nozzle shown in Heinrich et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a nozzle in Nirmalraj to provide an appropriate powder spraying nozzle (Nirmalraj – col. 5, lines 34-39; Kay - abstract).
Re claim 9, Nirmalraj as modified by Heinrich et al. disclose the 2D material is: in a dispersion in a liquid; in a liquid carrier, in solution; or a powder (Nirmalraj - col. 5, lines 26-39); wherein the 2D material provided as part of a solution which comprises non-toxic solvents (Nirmalraj – col. 5, lines 36-37); and wherein the 2D material is a powder (Nirmalraj - col. 5, line 37) and the method further comprises spraying the powder through the spray gun to deposit layers of the 2D material onto a substrate (Nirmalraj - abstract).
Re claim 11, Nirmalraj as modified by Heinrich et al. disclose spraying the 2D material onto the substrate under controlled gas environments (Nirmalraj - col. 5, lines 47-48) to control or alleviate oxidation and other changes in material functionality.
Re claim 13, Nirmalraj as modified by Heinrich et al. disclose the 2D material is selected from metallic, semiconductor and insulator 2D materials (Nirmalraj - col. 3, lines 15-20).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nirmalraj (US Pat No 10,307,789 B2) in view of Kay et al. (US Pat No 6,722,584 B2) and further in view of Kapur et al. (US Pub No 2015/0311378 A1).
Re claim 14, Nirmalraj as modified by Kay et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach a laser for illuminating the 2D material deposited on the substrate surface; and laser patterning or etching the deposited 2D material with the laser to form a metamaterial; and the laser patterning or etching with different or lower power lasers.
However, Kapur et al. disclose providing a laser (paragraph 0059) for illuminating the 2D material deposited on the substrate surface; and laser patterning or etching the deposited 2D material with the laser to form a metamaterial; and the laser patterning or etching with different or lower power lasers (Kapur – paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device of Nirmalraj as modified by Kay et al. include a laser as taught by Kapur et al. to provide effective and efficient structures (Kapur – abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach the required laser patterning module in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights