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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 (dependent on amended claim 13) recites “the plasma is generated by microwaves” (emphasis added), rendering claim 19 indefinite as to whether the “microwaves” are intended to refer to the “independent plasma source” of claim 13, or a distinct ‘independent plasma source thereof’. Claim 20 is also rejected as depending on claim 19.
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 13-22, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barberis et al (FR 3113175, equivalent to US 2023/0298772 cited below) in view of Wei (US 8,034,459).
With respect to claims 13-16 and 32, Barberis discloses a method comprising: depositing a protective coating of a material containing chromium to contact a metal substrate made of a zirconium material (Abstract), wherein the protective coating is deposited via continuous magnetron sputtering with kW high power using a plasma generated in a “rarefied atmosphere” (i.e. claimed “gas”) (para 0090-0091, 0110, and 0126), the protective coating of the material containing chromium is chromium-nitrogen (CrN) (para 0054 and 0058), and the metal substrate made of a zirconium material is a zirconium alloy (para 0046-0047). Barberis further discloses directing the plasma to a target of Cr to then direct charged particles (which includes the claimed “a flow of gaseous ions and a flow of neutral chromium atoms”) from the target to the metal substrate (para 0091, 0110, and 0124), while also applying (during the continuous magnetron sputtering) a bias voltage to the metal substrate of between -50 V to -150 V with specific examples of -100 V (para 0114; Table 1); thus teaching the bias voltage of -50 V to -100 V.
However Barberis is limited in that while the continuous magnetron sputtering includes one or more magnetron sputtering processes (para 0092-0095 and 0126), an independent plasma source being present is not specifically suggested.
Wei teaches a method of magnetron sputter depositing CrN from a Cr target with argon gas onto a steel substrate (Abstract; col. 2-3; Example 2; Table, col. 12), similar to the continuous magnetron sputtering of CrN onto the metal substrate of Barberis (para 0046-0058 and 0126). Wei further teaches in fig. 1 an independent electron source [26] to generate a plasma for a magnetron [12] of the magnetron sputter depositing (col. 3, lines 5-18; col. 4, lines 48-62). Wei cites the advantage of the independent electron source [26] as allowing for controlled increase in ion-to-atom ratio to form substantially uniform coatings (col. 4, lines 23-67; col. 5, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the independent electron source of Wei to generate the plasma of Barberis to gain the advantage of forming substantially uniform coatings.
In summary, since the combination of references Barberis and Wei teaches the method limitations of claims 13 and 32, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resultant directing the flow of gaseous ions to the flow of neutral chromium atoms having a property of a ratio “between 0.5 and 1.7” (claims 13 and 32) and the ratio “between 0.5 and 1.5” (claim 15), in addition to “densifying the deposited layer of chromium atoms on the metal substrate” (claim 32) (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, modified Barberis further discloses the protective coating of the material containing chromium has a thickness of 10-20 mm (para 0052 and 0054).
With respect to claim 21, modified Barberis further discloses the protective layer is deposited onto the substrate for use as a nuclear fuel rod cladding (para 0001), and discusses manufacturing bundles of nuclear fuel rods each having the cladding (para 0003 and 0007); thus Barberis is directed to depositing the protective layer onto multiple (i.e. several) metal substrates to then be used as the rods in the bundles.
With respect to claim 22, modified Barberis further discloses the several metal substrates are each rotated (e.g. claimed “first rotation”) during the depositing of the protective layer (para 0022 and 0100-0102).
With respect to claims 27-29, modified Barberis further discloses the metal substrate has an outer diameter (i.e. claimed “external diameter” or “width”) of 8-15 mm and a length of 2-5 m (para 0088), with the length greater than 10 times the external diameter or width.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the combination of reference Barberis and Wei has: Barberis teaching continuous magnetron sputtering of a Cr target with Ar gas to deposit the CrN (par 0090-0092, 0095, and 0126; and Wei teaches the method of magnetron sputter depositing CrN from a Cr target with either argon gas or both argon and nitrogen gas onto a steel substrate (Abstract; Example 2 col. 2-3 and Table), wherein the independent electron source [26] is a microwave generator (col. 3, lines 5-8; col. 4, lines 48-62).
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barberis et al (FR 3113175, equivalent to US 2023/0298772 cited below) and Wei (US 8,034,459) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tamagaki et al (US 2014/0110253).
With respect to claims 23-26, the combination of references Barberis and Wei is cited as discussed for claim 21. However modified Barberis is limited in that while plural metal substrates are deposited upon during a first rotation (para 0001, 0003, 0007, 0022 and 0100-0102), depositing onto the several metal substrates undergoing two or three combined rotations rotation is not specifically suggested.
Tamagaki teaches a method for coating steel (i.e. metal) substrates with CrN by sputtering (Abstract; para 0002, 0097-0101, and 0140), wherein figs. 6-7 depict the metal substrates on rotation units [4] on revolution table [5] to undergo rotation during the deposition (para 0100-0101), and figs. 6-7 also depict the metal substrates in the rotation are in three combined rotations (e.g. rotation about Group A, rotation about Group B, and rotation of revolution table [5]) with all three combined rotations having parallel axes (Abstract; para 0096-0101). Fig. 3(b) depicts that each metal substrate [W] as rod- or tube-shaped with a length approximately greater than a diameter/width, similar to the several metal substrates of Barberis. Tamagaki cites the advantages of the rotation as keeping a stable coating condition for a long period of time, preventing deposition on a portion other than the metal substrates, and uniformly depositing coatings on the metal substrates at one time even during different coating conditions (para 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the several metal substrates of the combination of references undergo the second and/or third rotations of Tamagaki to gain the advantages of keeping a stable coating condition for a long period of time, preventing deposition on a portion other than the plural metal substrates, and uniformly depositing coatings on the several metal substrates at one time even during different coating conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-7 filed 6/29/2026 are addressed below.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-6 with respect to independent claim 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Barberis and Wei being applied in the current rejection.
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 6-7 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
