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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 and 19-20 withdrawn
Claims 11-18 pending and elected
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (PG Pub 20100314005 A1) in view of Dorfman (US Pat. 5,352,493).
Consider Claim 11, Saito teaches the process of coating a stainless steel surface with a carbon layer for corrosion resist member (abstract), where prior to the DLC carbon layer a nitriding process is performed forming nitrided layer (figures 2-3, [0039]), and where the nitrided layer is performed using nitriding treatment including ion implantation (plasma), or nitrogen plasma [0054] using CVD method [0050], the use of plasma CVD encompass the vacuum presence. Saito teaches the carbon layer/DLC includes Si forming DLC-Si film [0040].
Saito does not teach the DLC-Si layer include oxygen.
However, Dorfman is in the process of forming corrosion and chemical wear resist application (Col. 6, lines 61-65), teaches the process of forming Diamond like carbon (Col. 2, lines 25-28), having alloying element such as Si and O (Col. 3, line 64 to Col. 4, line 5).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Saito with Dorfman to add oxygen to the DLC-Si film, to improve the long term thermal stability of the diamond-like carbon up to 1250℃, and short term stability up to 2000℃ (Col. 4, lines 21-26).
The combined Saito (with Dorfman) does not teach the resulting coated structure having a non-stick properties.
However, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “metallic surface coated with nitriding layer using ion plasma, then coated with DLC-Si-O”. Since the “results in a non-stick coating” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “metallic surface coated with nitriding layer using ion plasma, then coated with DLC-Si-O”, and the combination of the Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Saito (with Dorfman) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “results in a non-stick coating” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 12, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the DLC-Si-O film have carbon with 40 atomic %, and Si and O with over than 2 atomic % (encompassing 10-30 %) (Dorfman, Col. 3, line 64 to Col. 4, line 5). Where it would be obvious for skilled person in the art to calculate the wt% from atomic% for carbon, silicon and oxygen within the DLC film. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 13, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the DLC-Si-O film comprises multilayers coating, encompassing four layers (Dorfman, Col. 9, lines 3-5).
Consider Claim 14, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the intermediate layer comprising carbonitride film (Saito, [0037]) with a 50 nm or more thickness (Saito, [0038]) encompassing 1-1000 micron. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 15-16, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the taught in claim 11 above.
The combined Saito (with Dorfman) does not teach the hardness or the water contact angel for the resulting coating.
However, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “metallic surface coated with nitriding layer using ion plasma, then coated with DLC-Si-O”. Since the “results in hardness in the range of 500-2500 HV and water contact angle of 90-110 degree” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “metallic surface coated with nitriding layer using ion plasma, then coated with DLC-Si-O”, and the combination of the Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Saito (with Dorfman) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “results in hardness in the range of 500-2500 HV and water contact angle of 90-110 degree” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 17, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the intermediate layer and DLC-Si-O film with combined thickness of 50 nm or more (for intermediate layer) and 500 nm or more (for DLC-Si-O layer) (Saito, [0038], and [0041]), encompassing 0.1-40 micron.
Consider Claim 18, the combined Saito (with Dorfman) teaches the use of tetramethylsilane for forming the DLC layer using plasma (thus in vacuum) (Saito, [0066]) using plasma CVD (Saito, [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718