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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/25 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending examination, claims 13-15 have been cancelled by Applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaya et al (US 2017/0292182; hereafter Hamaya) in view of Mi (CN 113001415; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Mi) and Okada et al (JP2012-066336; machine translation provided herein; hereafter Okada).
Claim 1: Hamaya teaches a surface treatment (such as grinding or polishing) method for a ceramic thermal spray coating (See, for example, abstract, [0042-43] which comprises
Polishing or grinding to smooth the surface of the ceramic thermal spray coating (see, for example, [0042]). Hamaya is silent as to the particulars of the polishing process, so it does not explicitly teach it comprises jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure and having a median diameter (D50) of from 1 to 50 μm with a content of the powder medium of from 1 to 50 vol %, against a surface of a ceramic thermal spray coating, using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 1.0 MPa.
Mi teaches a method of precision surface polishing of parts in aerospace, machinery, medical, communications, and electronics industries and general applications for improving the surface quality by polishing (see, for example, [0001]). Mi further teaches wherein its inventive polishing method overcomes numerous disadvantages of conventional alternative methods and further provides benefits including no restriction on part complexity, enhanced surface accuracy, no damage layer, deterioration layer or corrosion layer is produced, significant, sufficient, uniform, efficient stable and reliable polishing, universal processing (See, for example, [0003-0014]. Mi further teaches teach its surface treatment method comprises jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower (such as water) and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure (topological polyhedron) and having a median diameter (D50) of from 3.4 to 13 μm (such as A abrasive) (see, for example, [0019], and [0025-26]). And further teaches using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 0.3 MPa to (see, for example, [0017]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated polishing via jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower (such as water) and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure and having a median diameter (D50) of from 3.4 to 13 μm using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 0.3 MPa as it would predictably overcome numerous disadvantages of conventional alternative polishing methods and provide benefits including no restriction on part complexity, enhanced surface accuracy, no damage layer, deterioration layer or corrosion layer is produced, significant, sufficient, uniform, efficient stable and reliable polishing, universal processing; and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Mi has taught wherein the water influences cavitation and force of the jetting (See, for example, [0031]), but it does not teach the content of the powder medium of from 1 to 50 vol %. Okada teaches a method of surface treatment via jetting a slurry to reduce surface roughness of the target surface (See, for example, abstract). Okada similarly teaches wherein the liquid is commonly water and the powder is alumina, further polygonal grained (see, for example, pg 4 4-5th paragraph). Okada further teaches wherein the ratio of liquid to powder is result effective, altering the surface treatment performance as compared to dry blasting alone, and wherein polishing predictably is achieved in the range of 15 to 60 % by mass powder in the slurry (see, for example, pg 4 1st and 4th paragraph, pg 8, pg 10; based on the densities of water (1g/cc) and alumina (~4 g/cc) the 15-60% mass range correlates to ~4.2 to 27.3 vol% powder in the medium). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the content of the powder medium of from ~4.2 to 27.3 vol% since the liquid : powder ratio is result effective and since such amounts are known to perform polishing predictably.
Claim 2: Hamaya further teaches wherein the ceramic thermal spray coating is formed of a rare earth oxyfluoride, and a rare earth fluoride (see, for example, [0020], such as yttrium fluoride, Y-5-O-4F7, YOF, and the like).
Claim 3: Mi further teaches wherein selection of the powder medium includes selection from topological polyhedron wherein the angle of each corner ranges from 15 to 160 degrees wherein the angle design can aid in regulation of the roughness and removal rate (See, for example, [0018]). Although not explicitly tetrahedral or more polyhedral particles with an angle formed by faces of from 10 to 135°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a morphology within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 4: Mi further teaches the surface treatment method according to claim 1, wherein the powder medium is formed from corundum (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), silicon carbide (SiC), boron carbide (B.sub.4C) (See, for example, [0020]).
Claim 5: Mi further teaches wherein the liquid is water (see, for example, [0026], [0031]).
Claim 6: Mi and Okada have both taught the conventionality of air as the compressed gas (See, for example, Mi [0004], Okada (pg 4 1st and 4th paragraphs, pg 10 2nd paragraph).
Claim 8: Hamaya in view of Mi and Okada teach the method of claim 1 above, including teaching of a ceramic thermal spray coating and the particularly claimed treatment parameters directed to the mode of jetting, morphology and size of abrasive, chemistry of slurry, and pressure of jetting (refer to the rejections above). Although they are silent as to particular dimension of grinding marks formed by the process, the examiner asserts that the formation of grinding marks possessing dimensions within the claimed widths and lengths would be inherent as the same claimed materials, chemistries, pressures and morphologies contributing to the surface treatment are present in the prior art method; 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 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 9: Hamaya does not mask portions of the nascent surface or only selectively polish sub portions thereof, but rather has taught the entire surface undergoes polishing (see, for example, [0042], wherein 10-50 micron of the layer thickness is removed, thus ~100% of the surface is polished, so ~0% nascent surface would remain, resulting in a claimed ratio of ~0%).
Claim 10: Hamaya does not mask portions of the nascent surface or only selectively polish sub portions thereof, but rather has taught the entire surface undergoes polishing (see, for example, [0042], wherein 10-50 micron of the layer thickness is removed, thus ~100% of the surface is polished, or would therefore possess grinding marks; so the claimed ratio would be ~100%). Alternative the examiner asserts that the claimed ratio would be inherent as the same claimed materials, chemistries, pressures and morphologies contributing to the surface treatment are present in the prior art method; 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 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 11: Hamaya further teaches wherein the ceramic thermal spray coating is a thermal spray coating on an inner wall member of a plasma etching device for semiconductor production (see, for example, abstract, [0002-7], [0019]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaya in view of Mi and Okada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamanoguchi (JP2008-156160; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Yamanoguchi).
Claim 7: Hamaya further teaches its articles are intended for components in semiconductor processing chambers withstanding corrosive atmospheres (see, for example, [0002, [0019]). Hamaya further teaches the degree of polishing / roughness / smoothness is result effective influencing the specific surface area and has taught an embodiment wherein the Ra prior to polishing is 1.0 (see, for example, [[0042] Table 1, example 3); thus further polishing would result in a lower Ra). But is it silent with respect to an appropriate skewness, so it does not teach a skewness Rsk of 0 or less. Yamanoguchi similarly teaches production of a corrosion resistance member for use in semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (see, for example, abstract). Yamanoguchi teaches wherein the surface roughness and skewness of the surface of such components influences plasma stability within the chamber; and preferably Ra should be less than 3.0 micron and the Rsw should be -1.0 to 0.5 to avoid edge effects and plasma / etching instability (see, for example, abstract, bottom of pg 2, top of pg 4, bottom of pg5-top of pg 7). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an Ra of less than 3 micron and a skewness of from -1.0 to 0.5 as such parameters would predictably enhance chamber plasma stability. Although the range of -1.0 to 0.5 is not explicitly 0 or less as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaluzec et al (US 5,958,521; hereafter Zaluzec) in view of Mi (CN 113001415; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Mi) and Okada et al (JP2012-066336; machine translation provided herein; hereafter Okada).
Claim 1: Zaluzec teaches a surface treatment (such as finish machining) method for a ceramic thermal spray coating (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2-3, col 3 lines 57-68), which comprises
Polishing or grinding to smooth the surface of the ceramic thermal spray coating (see, for example, Fig 2-3, col 3 lines 57-68, to achieve an Ra of from 0.5 to 5 micron). Zaluzec has taught the finishing can be achieved by conventional methods, further such as manual boring tools, but it does not explicitly teach it comprises jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure and having a median diameter (D50) of from 1 to 50 μm with a content of the powder medium of from 1 to 50 vol %, against a surface of a ceramic thermal spray coating, using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 1.0 MPa.
Mi teaches a method of precision surface polishing of parts in aerospace, machinery, medical, communications, and electronics industries and general applications for improving the surface quality by polishing (see, for example, [0001]). Mi further teaches wherein its inventive polishing method overcomes numerous disadvantages of conventional alternative methods, including manual methods (such as those of Zaluzec) and further provides benefits including no restriction on part complexity, enhanced surface accuracy, no damage layer, deterioration layer or corrosion layer is produced, significant, sufficient, uniform, efficient stable and reliable polishing, universal processing (See, for example, [0003-0014]. Mi further teaches teach its surface treatment method comprises jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower (such as water) and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure (topological polyhedron) and having a median diameter (D50) of from 3.4 to 13 μm (such as A abrasive) (see, for example, [0019], and [0025-26]). And further teaches using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 0.3 MPa to (see, for example, [0017]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated polishing via jetting a slurry containing a liquid having a viscosity at a temperature of 20° C. of 10 mPa/s or lower (such as water) and a powder medium having a polyhedral structure and having a median diameter (D50) of from 3.4 to 13 μm using a compressed gas under a pressure of from 0.01 to 0.3 MPa as it would predictably overcome numerous disadvantages of conventional alternative polishing methods and provide benefits including no restriction on part complexity, enhanced surface accuracy, no damage layer, deterioration layer or corrosion layer is produced, significant, sufficient, uniform, efficient stable and reliable polishing, universal processing; and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Mi has taught wherein the water influences cavitation and force of the jetting (See, for example, [0031]), but it does not teach the content of the powder medium of from 1 to 50 vol %. Okada teaches a method of surface treatment via jetting a slurry to reduce surface roughness of the target surface (See, for example, abstract). Okada similarly teaches wherein the liquid is commonly water and the powder is alumina, further polygonal grained (see, for example, pg 4 4-5th paragraph). Okada further teaches wherein the ratio of liquid to powder is result effective, altering the surface treatment performance as compared to dry blasting alone, and wherein polishing predictably is achieved in the range of 15 to 60 % by mass powder in the slurry (see, for example, pg 4 1st and 4th paragraph, pg 8, pg 10; based on the densities of water (1g/cc) and alumina (~4 g/cc) the 15-60% mass range correlates to ~4.2 to 27.3 vol% powder in the medium). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the content of the powder medium of from ~4.2 to 27.3 vol% since the liquid : powder ratio is result effective and since such amounts are known to perform polishing predictably.
Claim 3: Mi further teaches wherein selection of the powder medium includes selection from topological polyhedron wherein the angle of each corner ranges from 15 to 160 degrees wherein the angle design can aid in regulation of the roughness and removal rate (See, for example, [0018]). Although not explicitly tetrahedral or more polyhedral particles with an angle formed by faces of from 10 to 135°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a morphology within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 4: Mi further teaches the surface treatment method according to claim 1, wherein the powder medium is formed from corundum (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), silicon carbide (SiC), boron carbide (B.sub.4C) (See, for example, [0020]).
Claim 5: Mi further teaches wherein the liquid is water (see, for example, [0026], [0031]).
Claim 6: Mi and Okada have both taught the conventionality of air as the compressed gas (See, for example, Mi [0004], Okada (pg 4 1st and 4th paragraphs, pg 10 2nd paragraph).
Claim 8: Zaluzec in view of Mi and Okada teach the method of claim 1 above, including teaching of a ceramic thermal spray coating and the particularly claimed treatment parameters directed to the mode of jetting, morphology and size of abrasive, chemistry of slurry, and pressure of jetting (refer to the rejections above). Although they are silent as to particular dimension of grinding marks formed by the process, the examiner asserts that the formation of grinding marks possessing dimensions within the claimed widths and lengths would be inherent as the same claimed materials, chemistries, pressures and morphologies contributing to the surface treatment are present in the prior art method; 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 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 9: Zaluzec does not mask portions of the nascent surface or only selectively polish sub portions thereof, but rather has taught the entire surface undergoes polishing (see, for example, Fig 2, col 3 lines 57-68, thus ~100% of the surface is polished, so ~0% nascent surface would remain, resulting in a claimed ratio of ~0%).
Claim 10: Zaluzec does not mask portions of the nascent surface or only selectively polish sub portions thereof, but rather has taught the entire surface undergoes polishing (see, for example, Fig 2, col 3 lines 56-68), wherein 0.005-0.02 inches of the layer thickness is removed, thus ~100% of the surface is polished, or would therefore possess grinding marks; so the claimed ratio would be ~100%). Alternative the examiner asserts that the claimed ratio would be inherent as the same claimed materials, chemistries, pressures and morphologies contributing to the surface treatment are present in the prior art method; 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 In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 12: Zaluzec further teaches wherein the ceramic thermal spray coating is a thermal spray coating on a sliding member selected from the group consisting of a cylinder (see, for example, Fig 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg 6-7) that “a skilled artisan would have no motivation to combine Mi or Okada which pertain to entirely different objects and fields”. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hamaya has already established the predictability, conventionality, and desirability of polishing or grinding to smooth the surface of the ceramic thermal spray coating; thus such teachings are not additionally requisite in Mi and Okada. Hamaya’s silence as to the particulars of the polishing process would motivate one of ordinary skill would to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Not only does Mi serve as such a reference, it further establishes benefits including no restriction on part complexity, enhanced surface accuracy, no damage layer, deterioration layer or corrosion layer is produced, significant, sufficient, uniform, efficient stable and reliable polishing, universal processing; any one or more serving as suitable motivation. Okada is applied for establishing that the ratio of liquid to powder in blasting processes is result effective, altering the surface treatment performance as compared to dry blasting alone, and wherein polishing predictably is achieved in the range of 15 to 60 % by mass powder in the slurry. Further, Mi and Okada do not solely “pertain to entirely different objects and fields” as Mi has explicitly taught that its method of precision surface polishing of parts in aerospace, machinery, medical, communications, and electronics industries and general applications for improving the surface quality by polishing, further wherein "universal processing can be used for parts of difference structures, sizes and material types..." ([0001], [0014]). Thus Mi is not solely limited to exemplary metals as argued, but rather open to broader material types and fields. Okada has taught processing of carbides which are generally considered ceramics, including advanced ceramics thus relevant to the processing of ceramic materials.
Applicant further argues that “the artisan would not have a reasonable expectation of success due to the relatively aggressive methods of Mi and Okada compared to the relatively delicate ceramic thermal spray coating of Hamaya”, Mi teaches a much larger mass fraction of particles, and “the aggressive methods of Mi and Okada likely would be expected to promote (rather than reduce) the occurrence of cracks if applied to Hamaya”. In response, the examiner notes that “likely” is not definite, thus not convincing, and the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Again, Hamaya has already established the predictability, conventionality, and desirability of polishing or grinding to smooth the surface of the ceramic thermal spray coating; thus such teachings are not additionally requisite in Mi and Okada. Collectively Mi and Okada have demonstrated that the water concentration is result effective influencing the force of jetting, cavitation, resulting surface roughness / treatment, and thus the optimization of such a condition would be dictated by needs of the primary reference Hamaya (aggressiveness desired / grinding vs polishing), not Mi or Okada alone. Further “The [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) see also id. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Zaluzec does not disclose a “ceramic thermal spray coating” not being a ceramic, the examiner notes that the feedstocks of Zaluzec are thermally sprayed in oxidative environments explicitly resulting in the formation of ceramics, such as metal oxides including Fe, Cr, and Ni oxide coated material (see, for example, col 4), thus such resulting material reads on a ceramic thermal spray coating. With respect to repeated arguments directed to the combinability of methods of Mi and Okada the examiner directs Applicant’s attention to where such arguments were responded to above in the preceding paragraphs.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712