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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-18, 21-22, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barberis et al (FR 3113175, equivalent to US 2023/0298772 cited below).
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. Since Barberis teaches the method limitations of claims 13 and 32, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Barberis 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, 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, 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, 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, Barberis further discloses the metal substrate has an outer diameter (i.e. claimed “external diameter” or “width”) of 8-15 mm, a length of 2-5 m (para 0088), with the length greater than 10 times the external diameter or width.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barberis et al (FR 3113175, equivalent to US 2023/0298772 cited below) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wei (US 8,034,459).
With respect to claim 19, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 13. However Barberis is limited in that: 1) the gas comprising both argon and nitrogen for sputter depositing CrN from a target of Cr; and 2) microwaves to generate the plasma are not suggested.
Wei teaches a method of magnetron sputter depositing CrN from a Cr target with both argon and nitrogen gas onto a steel substrate (Abstract; Example 2 col. 2-3 and Table), similar to the continuous magnetron sputtering of CrN onto the metal substrate of Barberis (para 0046-0058 and 0126). Wei further teaches an electron source [26] is present to generate a plasma for the magnetron sputter depositing (col. 4, lines 48-62), wherein the electron source [26] is a microwave generator (col. 3, lines 5-8). Wei cites the advantage of the electron source [26] (and thus the microwave generator) 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:
1) incorporate both nitrogen and argon gas of Wei as the gas to sputter the target of Cr of Barberis to yield the predictable result of sputter depositing CrN; and
2) incorporate the electron source of the microwave generator of Wei to generate the plasma of Barberis to gain the advantage of forming substantially uniform coatings.
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) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tamagaki et al (US 2014/0110253).
With respect to claims 23-26, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 21. However 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 Barberis 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. 5-9 filed 4/10/2026 are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 21-23 and 25 have each been amended to recite “depositing” for consistency with claim 13; the previous objections are withdrawn.
102 Rejections
On p. 5-6, Applicant argues Barberis does not teach a process that yields the claimed ratio between 0.5-1.7 as recited by claims 13 and 32.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasoning:
Claims 13 and 32 each recite that by using a “method for depositing a chromium-based material from a target onto a metal substrate by continuous magnetron sputtering” (emphasis added) with the method comprising generally “directing a flow of gaseous ions and a flow of neutral chromium atoms”, results in the claimed ratio of 0.5-1.7.
Barberis teaches: a method of depositing chromium-based material from a target onto a metal substrate (Abstract; 0054, 0058, and 006-0047), with the depositing via continuous magnetron sputtering with kW high power using a plasma (para 0090-0091, 0110, and 0126); the plasma is directed to a Cr target to then direct charged particles (which includes the claimed “a flow of gaseous ions and a flow of neutral chromium atoms”) from the Cr target to the metal substrate (para 0091, 0110, and 0124).
As such, since Barberis teaches the process limitations for each of claims 13 and 32, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that Barberis 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” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
On p. 6-7, Applicant argues that Barberis is distinct from the claims 13 and 32 since the claims are directed to magnetron sputtering combined with an independent plasma source.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., independent plasma source using microwaves and power amounts supplied to the independent plasma source) are not recited in the rejected claims 13 and 32. Although claims 13 and 32 are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations (e.g. independent plasma source and associated power amounts) from the Specification are not read into claims 13 and 32 (MPEP 2145, VI).
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 8-9 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,525,158 (related to JP No. 06192824) is relevant for being cited in a Japanese Office Action for the corresponding Japanese application related to the present application.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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
Prosecution Insights