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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 contains the typo “diamondlike” in line 3, which should be “diamond-like”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-2, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (“Improving Tribological Properties of Titanium Alloys by Combining Laser Surface Texturing and Diamond-Like Carbon Film”, hereafter He) in view of Lima et al. (“Laser Cleaning and Texturizing on High-Speed Steel Tools for Enhanced PVD Process”, hereafter Lima).
Claim 1: He teaches a surface treatment method (abstract) comprising:
laser ablating at least one surface of a substrate (abstract, 2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates);
polishing, which corresponds to the claimed micro-finishing, the at least one surface to remove non-uniformities (2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates); and
applying a diamond-like carbon coating to the at least one surface (abstract, 2.2 Deposition of DLC film).
He further teaches that the substrate can be a metal substrate (abstract) and the deposition can be a physical vapor deposition (abstract, 2.2 Deposition of DLC film).
With respect to claim 1, He does not explicitly teach that the laser ablating removes surface contamination.
Lima teaches a surface treatment method (abstract) comprising laser ablating a metal substrate surface (abstract) and depositing a layer by physical vapor deposition (abstract). Lima teaches that the laser ablation can also clean the surface of contamination (abstract, 1. Introduction). Lima teaches that laser ablation cleaning allows the removal of undesirable materials with easy automation and the ability to treat three dimensional workpieces (1. Introduction). Both Lima and He teach surface treatment methods (He, abstract; Lima, abstract) comprising laser ablating a metal substrate surface (He, abstract, 2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates; Lima, abstract) and depositing a layer by physical vapor deposition (He, abstract, 2.2 Deposition of DLC film; Lima, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the laser ablation clean the surface of contamination as taught by Lima in the method taught by He because laser ablation cleaning allows the removal of undesirable materials with easy automation and the ability to treat three dimensional workpieces, as taught by Lima.
Claim 2: He teaches that the diamond-like carbon can have a thickness of about 3.3 µm (2.2 Deposition of DLC film).
Claim 6: He teaches that the substrate can comprise a titanium alloy (2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates).
Claim 8: He teaches that the laser ablation can be performed by a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet layer (2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates).
With respect to claim 8, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the laser is Q-switched.
Lima teaches a surface treatment method (abstract) comprising laser ablating a metal substrate surface (abstract) and depositing a layer by physical vapor deposition (abstract). Lima teaches that the laser ablation can be done by a Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser (2. Experimental). Both Lima and He teach surface treatment methods (He, abstract; Lima, abstract) comprising laser ablating a metal substrate surface (He, abstract, 2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates; Lima, abstract) and depositing a layer by physical vapor deposition (He, abstract, 2.2 Deposition of DLC film; Lima, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser taught by Lima as the neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser used in the method taught by the modified teachings of He because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 9: He teaches that the laser can have a frequency of 10 kHz (2.1 LST of titanium alloy substrates).
Claim 10: He teaches that the method can further comprise applying an adhesion layer to the surface prior to applying the diamond-like carbon coating (2.2 Deposition of DLC film).
Claim(s) 11 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. in view of Lima et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tudhope et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0017230, hereafter Tudhope ‘230).
Claim 11: The modified teachings of He teach the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. With respect to claim 11, they do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises a carbide.
Tudhope ‘230 teaches a method of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (abstract, [0010]) comprising applying an adhesion layer then applying the diamond-like carbon (abstract). Tudhope ‘230 teaches that the adhesion layer can comprise germanium carbide and silicon carbide (abstract, [0010]). Tudhope ‘230 teaches that this provides an adhesion layer with improved corrosion resistance (abstract, [0010]). Both Tudhope ‘230 and He teach methods of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (He, abstract; ‘230, abstract, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesion layer comprising germanium carbide and silicon carbide taught by Tudhope ‘230 as the adhesion layer in the method taught by the modified teachings of He because it provides an adhesion layer with improved corrosion resistance, as taught by Tudhope ‘230.
Claim 17: The modified teachings of He teach the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. He teaches that the coating can be diamond-like carbon (abstract, 2.2 Deposition of DLC film), which is a type of amorphous carbon.
With respect to claim 17, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the diamond-like carbon is hydrogenated.
Tudhope ‘230 teaches a method of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (abstract, [0010]) comprising applying an adhesion layer then applying the diamond-like carbon (abstract). Tudhope ‘230 teaches that having the diamond-like carbon be hydrogenated allows altering the film properties ([0050]). Both Tudhope ‘230 and He teach methods of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (He, abstract; ‘230, abstract, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diamond-like carbon be hydrogenated as taught by Tudhope ‘230 in the method taught by the modified teachings of He because having the diamond-like carbon be hydrogenated allows altering the film properties, as taught by Tudhope ‘230.
Claim 18: He teaches that the method can further comprise applying an adhesion layer to the surface prior to applying the diamond-like carbon coating (2.2 Deposition of DLC film).
Claims 19-23: With respect to claim 19, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of germanium, silicon, and carbon. With respect to claim 20, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises germanium, silicon, and carbon. With respect to claim 21, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises silicon carbide. With respect to claim 22, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises germanium carbide. With respect to claim 23, the modified teachings of He do not explicitly teach that the adhesion layer comprises silicon carbide and germanium carbide.
Tudhope ‘230 teaches a method of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (abstract, [0010]) comprising applying an adhesion layer then applying the diamond-like carbon (abstract). Tudhope ‘230 teaches that the adhesion layer can comprise germanium carbide and silicon carbide (abstract, [0010]). Tudhope ‘230 teaches that this provides an adhesion layer with improved corrosion resistance (abstract, [0010]). Both Tudhope ‘230 and He teach methods of coating a metal substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating (He, abstract; ‘230, abstract, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesion layer comprising germanium carbide and silicon carbide taught by Tudhope ‘230 as the adhesion layer in the method taught by the modified teachings of He because it provides an adhesion layer with improved corrosion resistance, as taught by Tudhope ‘230.
Claim(s) 25-29 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0037257, hereafter Yang ‘257) in view of Lima et al.
Claim 25: Yang ‘257 teaches a surface treating method (abstract) comprising:
cleaning a surface of a substrate to remove surface contamination ([0120]); and
applying a graphene-enhanced coating to the at least one surface (abstract, [0120]).
Yang ‘257 further teaches that the substrate can be a steel substrate ([0120]).
With respect to claim 25, Yang ‘257 does not explicitly teach that the cleaning is performed using laser ablating.
Lima teaches a surface treatment method (abstract) comprising cleaning a steel substrate surface (abstract) and depositing a layer (abstract). Lima teaches that the cleaning can be performed by laser ablation (abstract, 1. Introduction). Lima teaches that laser ablation cleaning allows the removal of undesirable materials with easy automation and the ability to treat three dimensional workpieces (1. Introduction). Both Lima and Yang ‘257 teach surface treatment methods (Yang ‘257, abstract; Lima, abstract) comprising cleaning a steel substrate surface (Yang ‘257, [0120]; Lima, abstract) and depositing a layer by physical vapor deposition (Yang ‘257, abstract, [0120]; Lima, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laser ablation cleaning taught by Lima as the cleaning in the method taught by Yang ‘257 because laser ablation cleaning allows the removal of undesirable materials with easy automation and the ability to treat three dimensional workpieces, as taught by Lima.
Claim 26: Yang ‘257 teaches that the graphene-enhanced coating can comprise about 0.5 to 10 w% graphene ([0013]).
With respect to claim 26, the modified teachings of Yang ‘257 do not explicitly teach that the graphene-enhanced coating comprises about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% graphene.
However, the claimed graphene concentration range of about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% is obvious over the graphene concentration range of about 0.5 to 10 w% taught by Yang ‘257 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 27: Yang ‘257 teaches that the graphene-enhanced coating can comprise an epoxy ([0012], [0031], [0120]).
Claim 28: Yang ‘257 teaches that the epoxy can comprise multiple components ([0012], [0120]).
Claim 29: Yang ‘257 teaches that the graphene-enhanced coating can have a thickness of about 0.001 to 10 µm ([0013]).
With respect to claim 29, the modified teachings of Yang ‘257 do not explicitly teach that the coating has a thickness in a range of about 2µm to about 15µm.
However, the claimed thickness range of about 2µm to about 15µm is obvious over the thickness of about 0.001 to 10 µm taught by Yang ‘257 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 33: Yang ‘257 teaches that the substrate can comprise stainless steel ([0106], [0120]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713