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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-22, 24, and 25 are pending in the application, claims 15-22, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, and 23 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14 in the reply filed on 29 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-22, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 December 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 12 January 2024.
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)(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, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2010/0239854 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Chen teaches a metallic material (ref. #1) comprising a metal substrate (ref. #11) coated with a carbon film (ref. #13), wherein the carbon film is a continuous and dense carbon film, composed of an amorphous phase (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "diamond-like carbon (DLC)") and a graphite-like phase ([0011]-[0013] and [0023] of Chen). Chen further teaches that the carbon film comprises a single-layer structure comprising the amorphous phase (ref. #131) intermixed with the graphite-like granule phase (ref. #133; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "carbonaceous multi-layered nanoparticulate (CMLN)"), wherein the graphite-like granule phase can exist at the interface with the substrate (figure 1 and [0026] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 8: Chen teaches that the substrate comprises metal ([0023]-[0024] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 9: Chen teaches that the substrate is steel (e.g., stainless steel, plain carbon steel, or low-alloy steel) ([0024] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 10: Chen teaches that the substrate comprises an interlayer (ref. #15; "diffusion layer") at the interface between the substrate and the coating ([0023] and [0028] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 11: Chen teaches that the interlayer comprises a carbide of a metal selected from titanium, or is between about 0.1 µm to about 5 µm thick ([0024] and [0028] of Chen); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range of --between 500 nm and 5 µm thick--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Fabrication and Characterization of DLC-graphene Nanocomposite Coatings for Tribological Application") (referred to herein as "Roselina").
Regarding Claim 1: Roselina teaches a composite material wherein a substrate (e.g., high speed steel [HSS]) surface is subjected to a deposition of graphene nano platelets (GNP) by spin coating, and subsequent deposition of diamond-like carbon (DLC) by plasma chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (figure 5.22 and [Pg. 143] of Roselina). (Note: In the instant case, the combination of the GNP and DLC layers together are considered to constitute the claimed "coating" of the invention.)
Regarding Claim 2: Roselina teaches that the concentration of CMLN at the interface between the substrate and the coating is higher than the concentration of CMLN at the external surface of the coating (figure 5.22 and [Pg. 143] of Roselina). (Note: In the instant case, since the GNP is first deposited and then covered with the DLC, there would be more GNP at the substrate then at the external surface.)
Regarding Claim 3: Roselina teaches that the CMLN is in contact with 4-5% (e.g., 4.24±0.76 %) of the substrate or the portion of the substrate that is coated (Table 4.2, figures 4.11 and 4.12, [Pg. 96, 97, and 102] of Roselina); which anticipates the claimed range of --4-5%--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Roselina teaches that the CMLN is graphene nanoplatelets ([Pg. 57] and [Pg. 143] of Roselina).
Regarding Claim 5: Roselina teaches that the thickness of the GNP can be from 2 to 10 nm (Table 3.1 and [Pg. 57] of Roselina). (Note: In the instant case, since the GNP can have a maximum of 10 nm and a minimum of 2 nm, there would exist some average thickness between 2 nm and 10 nm; which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed average thickness of the CMLN --between 2-10 nm--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).)
Regarding Claim 8: Roselina teaches that the substrate comprises metal (e.g., high speed steel [HSS]) (Table 3.1, [Pg. 57], and [Pg. 143] of Roselina).
Regarding Claim 9: Roselina teaches that the substrate is steel (e.g., high speed steel [HSS]) (Table 3.1, [Pg. 57], and [Pg. 143] of Roselina).
Regarding Claim 10: Roselina teaches that the substrate comprises an interlayer at the interface between the substate and the coating (figure 5.22, [Pg. 120 to 121], and [Pg. 143] of Roselina).
Regarding Claim 11: Roselina teaches that the interlayer (i.e., layers 4 and 4 of figure 5.2) comprises a carbide of a metal selected from chromium; or 1.47±0.07 µm (figures 5.2, 5.22, Table 5.2, [Pg. 120 to 123], and [Pg. 143] of Roselina); which anticipates the claimed range of --between 500 nm and 5 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 14: Roselina teaches that the composite material is part of a mechanical component, wherein the mechanical component is a bearing (Table 2.3 and [Pg. 18] of Roselina). (In the instant case, bearings are disclosed as mechanical components, and the coating is for use on mechanical components, which in this case can be a bearing.)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2010/0239854 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Chen is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5: Chen discloses that the thickness of the coating ranges from about 0.5 µm to about 50 µm (e.g., 3.8 µm, 7.8 µm, or 11.6 µm) (table 2 and [0026] of Chen); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --between 0.9-1.5 µm--. Chen differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights