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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In claim 9, the limitation “when the current to be supplied to the target is higher than 80 A in the particle evaporating step or when the bias voltage is 100 V or higher in the coating step” does not have a corresponding limitation for what happens when the current or bias voltage meet the recited limitations and therefore it is unclear whether the claim requires the current or bias voltage limitations or requires something else to occur when the current/voltage conditions are met. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to require that the current supplied to the target is higher than 80 A in the particle evaporating step or that the bias voltage is 100 V or higher in the coating step. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to remove “when” from each phrase.
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 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.
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, see pg. 6-8, filed 12/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kolehmainen (US 20220112591 A1) and Atsumi (US 20160326630 A1).
Kolehmainen teaches rotating a target for arc deposition, where the target is similar to that of Bae. Atsumi teaches that it is desirable to form the arc around the target to increase target utilization.
Additionally, it should be noted that applicant’s argument that Tamagaki does not teach a rotatable target is not persuasive because paragraph 0053 describes that the target is preferably rotatable separately from the disclosure that the substrates are rotated on a rotary table.
Conclusion
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