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 with traverse of Group II, claims 6-15 and 17-20 drawn to a device in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that D1 (JP S62-250172 A) relies on planar magnetrons which are different from the hollow cathode of the device and method. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as demonstrated by the rejection of claim 6 over the prior art below. Further, the targets of D1 are referred to as a cathode (see machine translation provided herewith p7 paragraph 2). Therefore the argument that the structure does not form a hollow cathode is not found persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are labeled “Figur” which is also a misspelling of Figure. Further, the drawings appear to represent a cross-sectional schematic view of the apparatus. However the drawing demonstrates mesh 14 extending through the center of hollow cathode 11. Applicant is kindly requested to correct the drawing by removing the dotted Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “121” has been used to designate both holes in the anode 12 (see [00015]) and openings of the hollow cathode (see [00016]). It is noted that the drawing shows “121” vaguely and appears to be pointing to the holes in the anode but may be considered to be pointing to the openings in the hollow cathode. Applicant is kindly requested to choose one structure for “121” to be representing and clearly label this in the drawing and provided the necessary correction to the specification so that only one structure has the designation of “121”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“dosing device” in claim 11 interpreted as a controllable valve 151 and a vibrator 152 [00016] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 6-15 and 17-20 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 6 recites “the container” in line 6. It is unclear to what structure “the container” is referring because the claim previously recites “an evacuable container” in line 2 and then recites “collection containers” in line 4. Therefore it is unclear whether “the container” is referring to the evacuable container or the collection container. Consistent with the instant specification and drawings, the claim is being examined inclusive of an interpretation that “the container” in line 6 is referring to the evacuable container. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim to refer to “the evacuable container” in line 6.
Claim 6 recites “the container has an inlet opening in the upper area for powder- or granular- form particles and for a gas or a gas mixture, which opens into the hollow cathode with a vertical length of 0.3 m to 1 m” in line 6-9. It is unclear if “with a vertical length of 0.3 m to 1 m” is modifying how the inlet opening is positioned into the hollow cathode or if the limitation is modifying the hollow cathode. The grammar of the text would suggest it is modifying how the inlet opening is positioned into the hollow cathode; however, the instant specification clearly indicates that the hollow cathode is to have the recited vertical length (see [0006]). Therefore, the limitation is being examined with an interpretation that the “with a vertical length of 0.3 m to 1 m” is modifying the hollow cathode. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as reciting the hollow cathode has a vertical length of 0.3 to 1m and reciting this separately from the discussion of the inlet opening which opens into the hollow cathode.
Claim 7 recites “the outlet opening” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purpose of examination on the merits, the limitation is being examined inclusive of “an outlet opening of the hollow cathode possesses a diameter of”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity.
Claim 8 recites “the container” in line 2 and the term is unclear for the same reasons presented regarding claim 6 above. Consistent with the application of the interpretation as applied to claim 6 above, “the container” is being interpreted as referring to the evacuable container. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim to refer to “the evacuable container” in line 2.
Claim 10 recites that the inner surface of the hollow cathode “preferably consists of precious metal” in line 4 of the claim. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the claim requires the surface to consist of a precious metal or if this is merely describing a preferred embodiment but that the claim covers any inner surface material. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim is being examined inclusive of an interpretation in which the claim does not require the inner surface of the hollow cathode to consist of a precious metal. Applicant is kindly requested to delete the entire text to retain the applied interpretation or to amend the claim for clarity by deleting “preferably” in line 4 of the claim if applicant intends to limit the claim to requiring the precious metal. Additionally, the term “precious metals” is unclear because the term refers to rare and valuable metals, both qualifications are relative terms and there is no one accepted definition of which metals are considered “precious metals”. Further, the instant application does not provide a definition or even provide examples of precious metals to assist in understanding which metals are considered to be precious metals. For example, US 5126915 which is directed to coated metal particles identifies copper and nickel as non-precious metals (col 1, ln 30-35) whereas US 2009/0104434 identifies copper as a precious metal [0030]. Further, the use of “consists of” is unclear because it is unclear if this requires a single precious metal, is inclusive of alloys of precious metals, and if it is inclusive of impurities or requires 100% pure metal. The limitation is particularly unclear when combined with the “preferably” and the “precious metals” which has been addressed above. Applicant is respectfully encouraged to consider deleting all of “preferably consists of precious metal” to address all of the issues raised regarding claim 10.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, 12-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S63-137164 of Kawamura et al., hereinafter Kawamura, (citing machine translation provided herewith) in view of DE 19804838 of Mueller et al., hereinafter Mueller, (citing machine translation provided herewith) and JP S62-250172 of Takeshima, hereinafter Takeshima (citing machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura teaches a device for coating powder- or granular-form particles by means of gas flow sputtering (page 1) with an evacuable container (vacuum chamber 1 Fig 1, page 2) in which a hollow cathode (3 Fig 1, page 2) functioning as a target (3 Fig 1, page 2) as well as collection containers (9 Fig 1, page 3 describes how particles are collected in 9) are arranged (Fig 1, note that structure 3 forms part of the evacuable container and therefore may be considered arranged within it, further this represents a mere rearrangement of parts), wherein the container has an inlet opening (pipe 5a Fig 1, page 2) in the upper area for powder- or granular- form particles and for a gas or a gas mixture (pipe 5a Fig 1 allows for gas and powder 7 to enter, see page 2), which opens into the hollow cathode (Fig 1) below which the collection containers (9 Fig 1) for the coated particles are arranged. Note that while Kawamura does not teach a plurality of collection containers, this represents a mere duplication of parts. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Additionally regarding rearrangement of parts to insert cathode 3 into chamber 1, mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Fig. 1 of Kawamura shows the chamber body 1 is an anode. Kawamura fails to teach an anode arranged in the evacuable container and fails to teach the hollow cathode has a vertical length of 0.3 m to 1 m. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for hollow cathode coating of powders (particulate matter) [0001], Mueller teaches an anode (9 Fig 1) arranged around and below the hollow cathode (3 Fig 1) [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kawamura to include the anode as arranged in Mueller because Mueller teaches this arrangement allows for the particles to enter the hollow cathode and sputter on the surface of the hollow cathode [0041] and Kawamura teaches this arrangement while not specifying the positioning of the anode. Regarding being arranged in the evacuable container, the analysis as applied above regarding the cathode remains. Regarding the hollow cathode has a vertical length of 0.3 m to 1 m, Kawamura is silent as to the length of the hollow cathode 3. In the same field of endeavor of sputter coating powders (see [Overview] on p2), Takeshima teaches the sputtering chamber (18 Fig 1) which included cathode targets 32 (Fig 2 and p7) is 500 mm (0.5 m) in the vertical direction (height) (p7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to include the hollow cathode is 0.5 m in vertical length because Kawamura does not limit the size and Takeshima demonstrates this as a suitable size for cathode sputter coating a falling powder (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura is silent as to the diameter of the cathode and the outlet opening. Mueller further teaches the hollow cathode (3) for coating particles should have a diameter of 0.1 to 20 mm [0023], [0026]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to include the diameter range taught by Mueller because Kawamura is silent as to the diameter and Mueller teaches 20 mm diameter will provide successful results for coating of the particles flowing through the hollow cathode. Regarding the diameter of the outlet opening, Takeshima shows the diameter of the outlet opening of the sputter coating chamber is smaller than the diameter of the remainder of the chamber (see 18 Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the diameter of the outlet smaller than the diameter of the hollow cathode of 0.1 to 20 mm because this represents a mere change of shape and Takeshima has demonstrated the tapered shape for the coating portion. The specific values appear to represent mere optimization of the size of the opening to provide the desired flow rate of powder and flow through the apparatus while providing the coating in an effective amount. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura teaches the inner surface of the hollow cathode functions as a target (p3) and teaches it is preferably steel (p3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the target be replaceably arranged because the target is used for sputtering and will be worn out. Replacement of the worn out portion allows for continued use of the apparatus which increases the market value of the apparatus. Further, this represents making the structure separable. Regarding consisting of precious metal, the instant limitation is not required based on the use of “preferably” as discussed above. Further, Kawamura teaches additional materials may be used (p3). Additionally Mueller teaches the cathode is preferably cobalt, copper, or vanadium [0033].
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura teaches a tube (5a Fig 1) introduces the particles into the hollow cathode interior but fails to teach the tube has an internal diameter of 0.8 to 1.2 mm and fails to teach it is arranged centrally to an internal space formed as a gas inlet with an internal diameter of between 3 and 5 mm. Kawamura does teach the tube is connected to an internal space formed as a gas inlet (space 6 having gas inlet via line having valve 8 Fig 1). Regarding being centrally arranged, Kawamura fails to teach this, but the limitation represents a mere rearrangement of the position of the tube 5a. Regarding the specific sizing, this represents mere optimization of the sizing to provide the desired throughput of powder. Further, Takeshima teaches a tube (tube having 20 Fig 1) arranged centrally to the gas inlet structure (chamber 17 Fig 1) and teaches the tube is smaller than the gas inlet structure (see Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder inlet structure to include this shape and arrangement because Takeshima teaches demonstrates it successfully provides powder to the coating space (chamber 18 Fig 1). Regarding the diameter of the outlet opening, Kawamura shows the diameter of the outlet opening is smaller than the diameter of the hollow cathode (see Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the diameter of the outlet smaller than the diameter of the hollow cathode of 0.1 to 20 mm. The specific values appear to represent mere optimization of the size of the opening to provide the desired flow rate of powder and flow through the apparatus while providing the coating in an effective amount. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The diameter of the internal space represents optimization as explained above and further it is noted that the internal space is not positively recited as a structure of the apparatus and therefore the claim is inclusive of the internal diameter of the space representing intended use (i.e. it is intended to be used with a structure of the recited size).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura fails to teach several hollow cathodes arranged in parallel in a cathode array. Initially it is noted that this represents a duplication of parts. Further, Mueller teaches that as an alternative to a singular hollow cathode (embodiment of Fig 1), there is an array of several hollow cathodes arranged in parallel (Fig 3-4, see holes 19) [0044] and they are surrounded by a common ring anode (9 Fig 3-4) [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to include the plurality of hollow cathodes with the annular anode as taught by Mueller because Mueller teaches this is a functional alternative for the same purpose of sputter coating powder (Mueller [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. The combination as applied renders obvious an outlet of 5 mm as explained in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. In the combination as applied Takeshima demonstrates the tapered end with a conical interior (see 18 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the end detachably attached because this allows access to the interior of the chamber for cleaning or adjusting the targets (19 Fig 1 and 3). Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura and the combination to include the end (lid) is separable and thus detachably attached. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.")
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Mueller and Takeshima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0238534 of Thierry et al., hereinafter Thierry.
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Kawamura fails to teach a net is arranged in the evacuable container, which extends from the collection container to an area above an outlet of the hollow cathode and serves to retain the coated powder. In the same field of endeavor of modifying particles (abstract), Thierry teaches a net (filter 27 Fig 1 [0056]) arranged in the evacuable container (10 Fig 1) which extends from a container (20 Fig 1) and serves to retain the coated powder [0056]. Regarding extending to an area above the outlet of the hollow cathode, the combination as applied to claim 6 includes the hollow cathode extending into the chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to include the net (filter) of Thierry because Thierry teaches this keeps particles from being expelled from the container when vacuum is applied in the chamber [0056]. Regarding specifically extending above the end of the hollow cathode, this is an obvious modification to further prevent leaking if any particles escape via a connection point.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Mueller and Takeshima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent 3,247,014 of Goldberger et al., hereinafter Goldberger.
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Kawamura fails to teach the anode is water-cooled and extends into the area below the hollow cathode, where the anode has holes for the passage of particles. Regarding the anode extends into the area below the hollow cathode, where the anode has holes for the passage of particles, Mueller as applied to teach the anode in the combination as applied to claim 6 above, teaches these limitations (see anode 9 Fig 1 and 3 which extends below the hollow cathode 3 and has opening for the passage of particles). Note duplication of parts of the embodiment of Fig 1 includes a plurality of anodes and thus a plurality of holes. Regarding the anode is water-cooled, in the same field of endeavor of coating particles (abstract), Goldberger teaches the anode is water cooled (col 4, ln 65- col 5, ln 5 teaches cooling of the anode and col 6, ln 59-65 teaches water cooling of the anode). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to include water cooled anode because Kawamura teaches this enables temperature control (col 3, ln 70 to col 4 ln 10) which helps control the coating process (col 4, ln 10-60).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Mueller and Takeshima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,462,010 of Takano et al., hereinafter Takano.
Regarding claim 11 and 19, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Kawamura teaches a supply line for supplying the powder (Fig 1 see line 5a) but fails to teach the line or structure contains a vibrator and adjustable valve. Addressing the same problem of treating particles (abstract), Takano teaches the supplying structure (dosing structure) includes a vibrator (col 2 ln 54-61) and an adjustable valve (see 8 or 9 Fig 1 and col 2, ln 54-61 discussion of valve and col 5, ln 40-55 for discussion of adjustable control). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kawamura to include the vibrator and adjustable valve dosing structure as taught by Takano because Takano demonstrates this arrangement allows for controllably supply of powder to the apparatus (col 5, ln 40-55). Regarding being positioned above the inlet opening, Kawamura has taught the supply line positioned above the inlet opening and therefore the combination retains this positional arrangement.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Mueller and Takeshima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0275503 of Arnoult, hereinafter Arnoult.
Regarding claim 14 and 20, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Kawamura teaches power to the hollow cathode (p2) but fails to teach the specific power level applied. In the same field of endeavor or hollow cathode coating (abstract) powder [0075], Arnoult teaches applying a power of 5kW to the cathode [0074] to form the plasma within the hollow cathode [0074]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to be operated with a power of 5 kW because Arnoult teaches this is an effective value for plasma generation within a hollow cathode.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Mueller and Takeshima as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2001/0019745 of Beele et al., hereinafter Beele.
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Kawamura teaches the chamber is a vacuum chamber (page 2) but fails to teach the pump. In the same field of endeavor of a hollow cathode coating apparatus (abstract and Fig 1), Beele teaches the vacuum is established using a roots pump or a rotary vane pump [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura to use a roots pump or rotary vane pump to establish vacuum in the chamber because Kawamura teaches a vacuum chamber and Beele teaches these type of pumps for use with a vacuum coating chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5, 814,367 teaches coating powder via sputtering with a power of 4 kW (col 7, ln 35-50). US 6,176,982 teaches a hollow cathode may include platinum (col 1, ln 53-60). US 4,242,982 teaches dropping powder through a tube (1 Fig 1) to coat and collecting in a collecting container (10 Fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716