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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 21-22, 24, 36 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krogstad et al. (“GOALIL Ternary Metal Diboride Coatings with Enhanced Oxidation Resistance and Durability- Understanding Phase Formation from a Metastable Starting State” NFS Award Number 1914769. Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research, 2019, pp. 1-2).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 21, Krogstad teaches that it is known to deposit an Hf1-xAlxBy coating on a substrate by Hf(BH4)4 in conjunction with TMAA by CVD at a growth temperature of 300C (see Technical Details and Project Outcomes sections).
Regarding claim 5, Krogstad further teaches the formation of HfCrxBy, which reasonably implies the replacement of the aluminum based capture agent for the formation of HFAlxBy with a chromium based capture agent (see Technical Details section).
Regarding claim 9, Krogstad further teaches he use of Cr3(B3H8)2 as a diboride precursor material as cited above.
Regarding claim 22, Krogstad teaches a range for x that substantially overlaps the claimed range (see Project Outcomes section).
Regarding claim 24, the chemical composition of the composition of Krogstad would be the same as that of the current invention (also by Krogstad) because the same material and methods are used to form it.
Regarding claim 36, the use of chromium based precursors in the formation of the diboride of Krogstad as provided above would reasonably results in the formation of a chromium diboride material of the composition claimed in the same manner that it results in the formation of a Hf1-xAlxBy, a hafnium based precursor as cited above.
Regarding claim 47, Krogstad teaches that it is known to deposit an Hf1-xAlxBy coating on a substrate by Hf(BH4)4 in conjunction with TMAA by CVD at a growth temperature of 300C (see Technical Details and Project Outcomes sections).
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) 7-8, 26 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstad et al. (“GOALIL Ternary Metal Diboride Coatings with Enhanced Oxidation Resistance and Durability- Understanding Phase Formation from a Metastable Starting State” NFS Award Number 1914769. Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research, 2019, pp. 1-2) as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 21-22, 24, 36 and 47 above and further in view of Lamm et al. (“Chemical Vapor Deposition of Zirconium Compounds: A Review”, Coatings, 1/23/2023, 13, pp. 1-30.)
Regarding claims 7, the teachings of Krogstad are as shown above. Krogstad fails to teach wherein the precursor is the titanium based precursor claimed. However, Lamm teaches that the titanium precursor claimed is a known substitute for Hf(BH4)4 in the formation of metal diborides (see section 6.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Hf(BH4)4 for the formation of metal diborides with the titanium based boron precursor claimed as a simple substitution of one known metal diboride precursor for another wherein the substitution of one for the other would be predictable and have a reasonable expectation of success based upon the teachings of Lamm.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Krogstad are as shown above. Krogstad fails to teach wherein the precursor is the titanium based precursor claimed. However, Lamm teaches that the Zr(BH4)4 claimed is a known substitute for Hf(BH4)4 in the formation of metal diborides (see section 6.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Hf(BH4)4 for the formation of metal diborides with the Zr(BH4)4 claimed as a simple substitution of one known metal diboride precursor for another wherein the substitution of one for the other would be predictable and have a reasonable expectation of success based upon the teachings of Lamm.
Regarding claim 26, the resultant product of the use of the titanium precursor described above in the rejection of claim 7 would be a diboride coating having the chemical formula claimed.
Regarding claim 31, the resultant product of the use of the zirconium precursor described above in the rejection of claim 8 would be a diboride coating having the chemical formula claimed.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstad et al. (“GOALIL Ternary Metal Diboride Coatings with Enhanced Oxidation Resistance and Durability- Understanding Phase Formation from a Metastable Starting State” NFS Award Number 1914769. Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research, 2019, pp. 1-2) as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 21-22, 24, 36 and 47 above and further in view of Xu et al. (“Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Oxidation Resistance of Zirconium Diboride Ceramics via Grain-Refining and Dislocation Regulation” Advanced Science, 2022, 9, pp. 1-12).
Regarding claim 41, the teachings of Krogstad are as shown above. Krogstad fails to teach further heat treating the diboride composition in order to improve the crystallinity. However, Xu teaches that the heat treatment of diboride composition at temperatures of 400-1700C in order to control the crystallinity of the structure (see Experimental Section). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the diboride material of Krogstad as guided by Xu in order to control the crystallinity present in the invention of Krogstad.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstad et al. (“GOALIL Ternary Metal Diboride Coatings with Enhanced Oxidation Resistance and Durability- Understanding Phase Formation from a Metastable Starting State” NFS Award Number 1914769. Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research, 2019, pp. 1-2) in view of Xu et al. (“Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Oxidation Resistance of Zirconium Diboride Ceramics via Grain-Refining and Dislocation Regulation” Advanced Science, 2022, 9, pp. 1-12) as applied to claim 43 above and further in view of Venkataramani et al. (USPGPub2008/0020137).
Regarding claim 43, the teachings of Krogstad in view of Xu are as shown above. Krogstad in view of Xu fails to teach avoiding the presence of oxygen in the heat treatment of the diboride composition. However, Venkataramani teaches that it is known to heat treat diboride composition in oxygen free environments in order to prevent the formation of undesirable oxide products that negatively affect desired properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat treat the diboride material of Krogstad as guided by Xu in the absence of oxygen as guided by Venkataramani in order to prevent the formation of undesirable oxides in the product of Krogstad in view of Xu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717