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 § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “wherein the rotation of the target… suppresses a temperature of the zirconium alloy below 450°C” is not fully supported by the original specification. The specification describes that the target rotation causes the arc to not be concentrated at a single point (see pg. 9) where radiant heat appears to be distributed (see Fig. 3), where radiant heat may cause the recrystallization of the zirconium alloy (see pg. 12-13), and where the recrystallization of the zirconium alloy mostly starts at a temperature of 450 degrees or higher (see pg. 9). However, the specification does not describe that the rotation is responsible for suppressing a temperature of the zirconium alloy below 450°C, as claimed in claim 1. Rather, the distribution of radiant heat appears to be a factor in reducing the likelihood of recrystallization but nothing in the specification indicates that the distribution of radiant heat necessarily suppresses the temperature of the zirconium alloy below 450°C. Additionally, the specification only recites “450 degrees” and not “450°C” and therefore the specific temperature recited is also not supported. Therefore, claim 1 lacks written description support.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1 and thus lack written description support by virtue of depending on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (KR 20200123656 A) in view of Hu (NPL – “High-temperature oxidation of thick Cr coating prepared by arc deposition for accident tolerant fuel claddings”), Park (KR 20160005819 A), Zhao (CN 105568231 A), Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1), and Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bae (KR 20200123656 A) teaches a method of manufacturing a zirconium alloy cladding tube comprising preparing a cladding tube made of a zirconium alloy material and a target preparing step of preparing a target comprising a chromium based coating material to be applied onto the cladding tube, wherein the target inherently has a preset target condition including the material the target is made of, wherein both the target and cladding tube are each loaded into a vacuum chamber (para 0010, 0021-0023, 0027). Bae also teaches a heating step where impurities attached to the cladding tube are removed by increasing the temperature (preset heating condition) in the initial vacuum atmosphere formed using a pump, thus heating both the tube and target within the chamber (para 0026, 0053-0054). Bae also teaches a process of applying a bias to the target, which necessarily includes a preset current and bias voltage, to generate an arc resulting in evaporating particles of chromium (particle evaporating step) from the target and etching of the surface of the cladding by attracting chromium ions toward the cladding surface, thus cleaning the surface (etching step of removing surface foreign substances), and then reducing the bias voltage applied to the substrate to allow for uniform deposition of chromium onto the cladding tube surface, wherein the chromium is ionized by the arc generated by applying bias to the target, which inherently has a preset voltage condition (para 0050, 0055-0056).
Bae fails to explicitly teach a change in fine structure is adjusted to prevent the occurrence of recrystallization of the zirconium alloy on the surface of the cladding tube by adjusting the target condition, the preheating condition, current condition, and the voltage condition. However, Hu (NPL), in the analogous art of zirconium claddings, teaches that structural changes such as grain growth (recrystallization) of the zirconium alloy may deteriorate its performance, where the grain growth may occur at temperatures above 500°C, and a deposition temperature of 300°C is adopted to ensure the substrate structure is not affected by the coating process (Section 2 – Experiments). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the deposition operations of Bae such that the deposition temperature is low enough that grain growth does not occur (change in fine structure is adjusted to prevent the occurrence of recrystallization of the zirconium alloy).
Bae teaches the preheating is performed at a temperature of 150 to 300°C (para 0054) and therefore the preheating temperature/condition is adjusted to prevent grain growth/recrystallization (Hu Section 2). The combination of Bae and Hu fails to explicitly teach the change in fine structure is adjusted by adjusting the target condition, current condition, and voltage condition. However, Park (KR 20160005819 A), in the analogous art of zirconium cladding tubes, teaches performing arc ion plating at a relatively low temperature to prevent deterioration of the zirconium alloy, wherein the bias voltage applied to the target during deposition may be controlled such that the substrate is not unnecessarily heated (para 0063-0065, 0092-0093). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the bias voltage applied to the target during deposition (adjusting the voltage condition) to prevent heating and deterioration due to grain growth (adjusted to prevent recrystallization).
Furthermore, Zhao (CN 105568231 A), in the analogous art of arc etching, teaches that a substrate may be cleaned/etched in a process using a chromium target with an arc current of 50 A (para 0150). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the etching method of Bae with the etching method of Zhao including an arc current of 50 A for cleaning/etching the substrate because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of cleaning/etching the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Bae, Hu, Park, and Zhao fails to explicitly teach the target condition and current condition are adjusted to adjust the change in fine structure and prevent recrystallization of the zirconium alloy. However, the aforementioned combination teaches a similar process, including setting a current condition of below 80 A and using a target made of chromium (adjusting a current condition and a target condition), as the instant application. Similar methods must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the method of the aforementioned combination must necessarily yield a target condition and current condition that adjust the change in fine structure and prevent recrystallization of the zirconium alloy. See MPEP 2112.
The combination of Bae, Hu, Park, and Zhao fails to explicitly teach the target rotates and the arc is formed in a doughnut shape according to a rotation of the target. However, Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1), in the analogous art of cathodic arc deposition, teaches a rotatable target that has an arc ignited on its surface while the target rotates such that the arc generated moves around the surface of the target in a uniform manner such that material from the target is removed homogenously (para 0006-0007, 0036-0037, 0040-0041). Bae similarly teaches generating an arc at the surface of a target 400 using an igniter 434 (para 0040, 0048; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stationary target of Bae with the rotatable target arrangement of Kolehmainen in order to improve target utilization and reduce wasted target material because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of depositing a material by arc deposition. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Because Kolehmainen teaches rotating the target while generating the arc such that the arc generated moves uniformly around the surface, an arc would necessarily be formed in a circular/doughnut shape according to the rotation of the target. Alternatively, Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1), in the analogous art of cathodic arc deposition, teaches that a striker/igniter for generating an arc discharge where the target may be rotated such that arc spots from each ignition are generated adjacent to each other such that the arc consumes more of the target material and improves utilization efficiency (para 0009, 0039-0040, 0066, 0068; Fig. 9A-9C). Additionally, Kolehmainen teaches the arc generation may be repeated such that multiple pulses are generated (para 0041). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate multiple arc pulses, as described by Kolehmainen, while rotating the target such that the arc spots overlap with each other along the rotational path (the arc generated is formed in a doughnut shape according to a rotation of the target), as described by Atsumi, in order to increase target utilization and reduce material waste.
The combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi fails to explicitly teach the rotation of the target distributes radiant heat generated by the arc and suppresses a temperature of the zirconium alloy below 450°C. However, Kolehmainen and Atsumi teaches a rotation of target such that an arc position changes (Kolehmainen para 0040-0041; Atsumi para 0066-0068). Therefore, the rotation of Kolehmainen and Atsumi must necessarily yield distributing radiant heat generated by the arc to different portions of the target. See MPEP 2112.
Furthermore, the aforementioned combination teaches that structural changes such as grain growth (recrystallization) of the zirconium alloy cladding may deteriorate its performance, where the grain growth may occur at temperatures above 500°C, and a deposition temperature of 300°C is adopted to ensure the substrate structure is not affected by the coating process (Hu Section 2 – Experiments). Therefore, it would have been obvious to suppress the temperature of the zirconium alloy to a temperature below 500°C to prevent recrystallization/grain growth by selecting the deposition temperature. Though Hu fails to explicitly teach the zirconium alloy temperature is suppressed to below 450°C, one skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Hu range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a deposition temperature resulting in a zirconium alloy temperature below 500°, including values resulting in a zirconium alloy temperature within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details. Additionally, though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the rotation of the target suppresses the temperature below 450°C, the movement of the arc spot would inherently at least somewhat reduce radiant heat from reaching the zirconium alloy cladding, thus contributing to the temperature suppression.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches the target coating material is made of chromium and the film has a high oxidation resistance (comprises an oxidation resistant material) (Bae para 0010, 0015).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches the oxidation resistant material is chromium or a chromium containing alloy (Bae para 0010).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches the preheating is performed at 150 to 300 °C (set to 350 degrees or lower) (Bae para 0054).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches the etching/particle evaporating step is performed with a target current of 50 A (80 A or lower) (Zhao para 0150; Bae para 0055).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (KR 20200123656 A) in view of Hu (NPL – “High-temperature oxidation of thick Cr coating prepared by arc deposition for accident tolerant fuel claddings”), Park (KR 20160005819 A), Zhao (CN 105568231 A), Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1), and Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park2 (US 20200283885 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches the etching step is performed with a target current of 50 A (80 A or lower) and for a 10 minute duration (20 minutes or shorter) (Zhao para 0150). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the etching step is performed with a bias voltage of 200 to 600 V applied to the target. However, Park2 (US 20200283885 A1), in the analogous art of arc ion plating, teaches that the applied bias voltage to the target typically varies from 100 to 400 V (para 0053-0054). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the applied bias voltage to the target in the etching step of Bae in view of Zhao with the applied bias voltage of 100 to 400 V described by Park2 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though Park2 fails to explicitly teach a bias voltage of 200 to 600 V, one would have expected the use of any value within the Park2 range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 100 to 400 V, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (KR 20200123656 A) in view of Hu (NPL – “High-temperature oxidation of thick Cr coating prepared by arc deposition for accident tolerant fuel claddings”), Park (KR 20160005819 A), Zhao (CN 105568231 A), Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1), and Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu2 (CN 112795875 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi fails to explicitly teach the bias voltage in the coating step is set to lower than 100 V. However, Hu2 (CN 112795875 A), in the analogous art of arc deposition, teaches that a main Cr layer may be deposited using a low bias voltage of -50 to -180 V, which is equal to 50 to 180 V depending on the direction defined, applied to the target (para 0011, 0070-0071). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target bias voltage used during the coating step of Bae with the target bias voltage of 50 to 180 V described by Hu2 because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of depositing a chromium film by arc deposition. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though Hu2 fails to explicitly teach a bias voltage of less than 100 V, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hu2 range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 50 to 180 V, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (KR 20200123656 A) in view of Hu (NPL – “High-temperature oxidation of thick Cr coating prepared by arc deposition for accident tolerant fuel claddings”), Park (KR 20160005819 A), Zhao (CN 105568231 A), Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1), and Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamagaki (US 20070240982 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi fails to explicitly teach a size of the target is set to 3 inches or more and 10 inches or less. However, Tamagaki (US 20070240982 A1), in the analogous art of arc deposition, teaches a target for arc ion plating can have a diameter of 100 to 150 mm, or about 3.9 to 5.9 inches (3 inches or more and 10 inches or less) (para 0019, 0038). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target size of Bae with the target size of Tamagaki because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of performing arc deposition. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bae, Hu, Park, Zhao, Kolehmainen, and Atsumi teaches that the bias voltage applied to the target during the coating step may be between 100 and 300 V (100 V or higher) (Park para 0064-0065, 0093). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the size of the target is set to 4 inches or more and 10 inches or less. However, Tamagaki (US 20070240982 A1), in the analogous art of arc deposition, teaches a target for arc ion plating can have a diameter of 100 to 150 mm, or about 3.9 to 5.9 inches (para 0019, 0038, 0043, 0053). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the target size of Bae with the target size of Tamagaki because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of performing arc deposition. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Tamagaki fails to explicitly teach a size of the target is 4 inches or more and 10 inches or less. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Tamagaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 100 to 150 mm (3.9 to 5.9 inches), including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach the rotation of the target distributes radiant heat generated by the arc and suppresses a temperature of the zirconium alloy below 450°C while the claimed subject matter utilizes the target rotation to actively form a doughnut shaped arc which prevents the arc from concentrating at a single point and preventing recrystallization. This argument is not persuasive because the motivation to modify the references does not need to address the same problem as the applicant’s invention to still achieve a similar effect. See MPEP 2144(IV). In particular, the rotation of Kolehmainen and Atsumi results in the movement of the arc spot to different portions of the target, which would inherently distribute any heat generated by the arc generation process to different portions of the target.
Applicant argues that because Kolehmainen and Atsumi are already equipped with cooling systems for thermal management, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to adopt a target rotation mechanism intended for erosion control to address a thermal damage issue on the substrate. This argument is not persuasive because the motivation to modify the references does not need to address the same problem as the applicant’s invention to still achieve a similar effect. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Applicant argues that the examiner’s assumption that target rotation acts as a heat control means for the substrate is structurally and functionally unsupported by the cited references. This argument is not persuasive because the generation of radiant heat, as described by the applicant, would necessarily be distributed by the rotation of the target at least due to residual heat after an arc spot is formed being moved to a different position relative to the substrate and thus the substrate temperature suppression would at least slightly be influenced by the target rotation.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights