DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 8 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “an electroplating solution” appears to be misleading since an anodizing process is taking place. There does not appear to be any electroplating taking place. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2004/0002221) in view of Daugherty et al. (US 2014/0272459).
Regarding claim 1, O’Donnell discloses a method of providing a coating for corrosion-erosion resistance in plasma atmospheres (abstract) (= a method for preparing reaction chamber component), comprising:
Providing a substrate [0062] (= providing a substrate);
Anodizing the surface of the component [0043] (= forming an oxide film layer from a surface of the substrate by performing an anodizing treatment with acid);
The anodized layer can be sealed [0043] (= performing a sealing process to the oxide film layer to seal pores formed in the oxide film layer);
Surface treating including particle or grit blasting [0042] (= performing a sandblasting process to the oxide film layer to provide the oxide film layer with a predetermined roughness for receiving a ceramic layer);
Thermal spraying a yttria coating (abstract) (= forming the ceramic layer on the oxide film layer).
Regarding the claimed sandblasting, O’Donnell discloses particle blasting which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably regard as sandblasting.
O’Donnell is silent in regards to the anodizing parameters including the electrolyte therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the related art for workable anodizing parameters and arrive at a reference such as Daugherty.
Daugherty discloses anodizing aluminum of a plasma chamber component. Daugherty discloses anodizing including a mixed acid of oxalic acid and sulfuric acid [0033], [0054]. Daugherty discloses that the anodization utilizes the benefits of the oxalic acid including high ending voltage, but low electrical conductivity and sulfuric acid including high conductivity and removing intermetallic particles with use of low temperature to achieve good hardness [0054].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the related art for workable anodizing parameters and arrive at the disclosure of Daugherty which teaches the use of mixed acid electrolyte for performing anodizing.
Regarding claim 2, O’Donnell discloses the use of aluminum [0037] and therefore does not contain silicon and falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, O’Donnell discloses the anodized aluminum layer having a thickness of about 2-10 mil [0043]. Daugherty discloses an anodized coating including about 2 to 125 mils and 1.5 – 3.0 mils [0007], [0051]. The thicknesses of O’Donnell and Daugherty do not overlap the claimed thickness, however, selection of a desired thickness is an obvious engineering design choice for producing the same or similar product.
Regarding claim 9, O’Donnell discloses sealing including using boiling deionized water [0043] (= wherein the columnar pore structures are filled with hydrated alumina to seal the oxide film layer). Anodizing aluminum in acidic electrolyte intrinsically produces columnar pore structures.
Regarding claim 11, O’Donnell discloses a surface roughness including 20 to 100 micro-inch [0043]. Daugherty discloses 10 to 20 microinches [0006]. The ranges of O’Donnell and Daugherty do not overlap the claimed range, however, they are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar result.
Regarding claim 12, O’Donnell discloses thermal spraying a ceramic coating including a ceramic powder [0038]-[0039]. The claimed “preset purity” and “preset particle size” are not particularly limiting. O’Donnell discloses annealing [0036].
Regarding claim 14, O’Donnell discloses yttria oxide [0011].
Regarding claim 15, O’Donnell discloses an yttria coating including a thickness of 0.001 to 1 inch [0068].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2004/0002221), in view of Daugherty et al. (US 2014/0272459) and in further view of Chin (US 2015/0009571).
Regarding claim 3, O’Donnell and Daugherty fail to disclose a preheating step as claimed.
In the same or similar field of anodizing, Chin discloses pre-treatment steps including heating a metal substrate as a preparation step [0017]. Chin discloses that the step provides a more smooth surface having a desired surface roughness [0026]. Chin does not explicitly disclose the claimed temperature, however, the selection of a temperature above room temperature would have been an obvious engineering selection in order to heat the substrate.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a pre-heating step because it is well known to prepare a substrate with pre-treatment steps such as heating to provide a smooth surface for subsequent treatments.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2004/0002221), in view of Daugherty et al. (US 2014/0272459) and in further view of Ikegaya et al. (US 3,836,439).
Regarding claims 4-7, O’Donnell in view of Daugherty disclose using a mixed acidic electrolyte for anodizing. The combination does not disclose the acid including nitric acid.
Ikegaya discloses an anodizing electrolyte comprising nitric acid (0.05 – 0.5 % weight by volume) in addition to sulfuric acid (0.05 to 1.0 % weight by volume) and oxalic acid (0.5 to 10 % weight by volume). Ikegaya discloses that the inclusion of nitric acid results in quicker treatment time than just oxalic acid and sulfuric acid alone (Col. 5 lines 26-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising nitric acid because Ikegaya discloses the combination of oxalic acid, sulfuric acid and nitric acid to increase the anodization rate. The concentration ratio of Ikagaya overlaps the claimed ranges. Anodization intrinsically includes placing a substrate in a solution.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2004/0002221), in view of Daugherty et al. (US 2014/0272459) and in further view of Doren et al. (US 2017/0331212).
Regarding claim 10, O’Donnell in view of Daugherty fail to disclose plasma sandblasting. O’Donnell discloses cleaning to remove undesirable surface substances [0042].
Doren discloses that surfaces can be treated with laser beam process or plasma jet process in order to enable precise beaming processes [0028].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising plasma sandblasting because Doren discloses precise treatment of a surface using plasma beaming.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (US 2004/0002221), in view of Daugherty et al. (US 2014/0272459) and in further view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0022595).
Regarding claim 13, O’Donnell in view of Daugherty is silent in regards to the purity and size of particle therefore in order to produce the method of O’Donnell in view of Daugherty one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for workable powder properties.
Sato discloses raw material particles of an oxide such as yttrium oxide is preferably 99.99 % and wherein the particle size may be between 5-45 microns [0059]-[0060].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a ceramic powder with a purity of 99.99% and a size of 5 to 10 microns because Sato discloses raw material particles of an oxide such as yttrium oxide is preferably 99.99 % and wherein the particle size may be between 5-45 microns [0059]-[0060].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0363596 – bead blaster, yttrium oxide
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights