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 § 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) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esquivel-Upshaw et al. (USPGPub 2023/0066453) in view of Hsieh (USPGPub 2018/0187310).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Esquivel-Upshaw teaches that it is known to treat the surface of 3Y-TZP zirconia (see Aspect 3) with a plasma of ammonia for the purpose of adding nitrogen atoms to the substrate (see Aspects 16-17). Esquivel-Upshaw fails to teach the use of a carrier gas or general aspects of plasma treatment in general including basic treatment conditions. However, Hsieh teaches that when providing ammonia gas as a reactive gas for plasma treatment it is known to provide argon, nitrogen or combinations thereof as a carrier gas (see claim 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nitrogen, argon or combination of gases of Hsieh in the ammonia plasma method of Esquivel-Upshaw as an application of a known carrier gas provision technique employed in an ammonia plasma treatment process applied to the known ammonia plasma treatment process of Esquivel-Upshaw wherein the application would have been predictable based upon the similarity in application of Hsieh and Esquivel-Upshaw and wherein there would be an expectation of an improved system due to the ability to control total gas flow using a carrier gas without increasing the amount of reactant gas in the chamber as is commonly provided by carrier gases in this field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Esquivel-Upshaw teaches wherein the zirconia is used for dental purposes (see Background section).
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh generally teaches the use of vacuum conditions [0038].
Regarding claim 14, Hsieh further teaches treatment times in the range claimed [0065].
Regarding claims 15-16, Esquivel-Upshaw teaches that it is known to treat the surface of 3Y-TZP zirconia (see Aspect 3) with a plasma of ammonia for the purpose of adding nitrogen atoms to the substrate (see Aspects 16-17). Esquivel-Upshaw fails to teach the use of a carrier gas or general aspects of plasma treatment in general including basic treatment conditions. However, Hsieh teaches that when providing ammonia gas as a reactive gas for plasma treatment it is known to provide argon, nitrogen or combinations thereof as a carrier gas (see claim 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nitrogen, argon or combination of gases of Hsieh in the ammonia plasma method of Esquivel-Upshaw as an application of a known carrier gas provision technique employed in an ammonia plasma treatment process applied to the known ammonia plasma treatment process of Esquivel-Upshaw wherein the application would have been predictable based upon the similarity in application of Hsieh and Esquivel-Upshaw and wherein there would be an expectation of an improved system due to the ability to control total gas flow using a carrier gas without increasing the amount of reactant gas in the chamber as is commonly provided by carrier gases in this field of endeavor. Further Esquivel-Upshaw teaches wherein the zirconia is used for dental implant purposes (see Background section).
Regarding claim 17, Hsieh further teaches frequency ranges in the range claimed. The teachings of Esquivel-Upshaw in view of Hsieh are as shown above. Esquivel-Upshaw in view of Hsieh fails to teach the voltage in terms of supply voltage. Hsieh discusses voltage in terms of applied field density [0051]. However, the applied field is directly controlled by the supplied voltage wherein Hsieh teaches that it is known to control the field density in order to control the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity of the product formed. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific voltage of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the voltage generated in the invention of Esquivel-Upshaw in view of Hsieh thereby directly controlling the applied charge density in order to optimize the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity of the product of Esquivel-Upshaw in view of Hsieh. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 18, Hsieh generally teaches the use of vacuum conditions [0038].
Regarding claim 19, Hsieh further teaches treatment times in the range claimed [0065].
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
Prosecution Insights