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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III: claims 12-18 and cancellation of Groups I-II: claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12-18 are 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-18 are dependent on claim 12 and are thus also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 13 recites “a surface C/O ratio of 0.1 to 0.2,” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the ratio is in mass% or atomic%.
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) 12-15 and 17-18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-1993391), hereinafter “Lee,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a method of modifying a surface of a metallic material, wherein the metallic material may be titanium or a titanium alloy, the method including the steps of filling a plasma generating device with a carrier gas, generating plasma in the plasma generating device, and irradiating the generated plasma to the metallic material (Abstract, [0001], [0003], [0011], [0016], [0021], [0026], [0027], [0031], [0034], [0039], [0041], [0047], [0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the surface-modified titanium material has a surface C/O ratio of 0.1 to 0.2. However, as detailed above regarding claim 12, and detailed below regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, Lee teaches the same material modified by a substantially similar plasma treatment. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the surface-modified titanium material of Lee to have a C/O ratio that is the same or overlapping with the instantly claimed range. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches that the titanium material is for a dental implant ([0011]).
As to claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the carrier gas may be nitrogen (i.e., N2) ([0031]).
With respect to claim 17, Lee teaches wherein the plasma generated is radiated under conditions of room temperature and atmospheric pressure (Abstract, [0011]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches wherein the plasma is irradiated to the titanium for 8-12 seconds ([0041]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.1 seconds to 10 minutes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Lee (KR 10-1993391), wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein, teaches a method of modifying a surface of a metallic material, wherein the metallic material may be titanium or a titanium alloy, the method including the steps of filling a plasma generating device with a carrier gas, generating plasma in the plasma generating device, and irradiating the generated plasma to the metallic material (Abstract, [0001], [0003], [0011], [0016], [0021], [0026], [0027], [0031], [0034], [0039], [0041], [0047], [0061]). Lee further teaches wherein the plasma is generated by supplying a voltage of 0.5 kV to 3.0 kV ([0027]). However, Lee teaches a frequency of 60 Hz ([0061]), which is far outside of the instantly claimed range of 10-30 kHz. Furthermore, Lee does not teach or adequately suggest the use of a 10-30 kHz frequency. Thus, claim 16 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights