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
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (JP 2015-136469) in view of Abraham (US 2021/0115553).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki teaches a formation apparatus of a hydroxyapatite-containing thin film, the formation apparatus comprising:
a sputtering device which forms a thin film of a material including an antibacterial metal and hydroxyapatite on a surface of an object by sputtering, the object being an artificial joint or a dental implant [0032];
a hydrothermal treatment device which performs hydrothermal treatment on the object, on which the thin film is formed, using an alkaline solution [0036];
a first control device which controls the sputtering device [0032];
and a second control device which controls the hydrothermal treatment device [0036],
the sputtering device comprising:
a first container (vacuum chamber, [0032];
a holder provided in the first container and used to place the object, on which the thin film is yet to be formed, on a first surface [0032-0033];
an electrode (target) provided in the first container, including a second surface facing the first surface of the holder, and used to place the material on the second surface [0032];
and an inert gas filling device which fills the first container with an inert gas (argon, [0032], [0039],
controlling the inert gas filling device to control a pressure in the first container [0032] [0039], and controlling the sputtering device to make an atomic number ratio (calcium/phosphorus) of calcium to phosphorus in the thin film range from 1.0 to 3.0 [0039] and to make a thickness of the thin film range from 0.1 μm to 10 μm [0028], [0032],
the hydrothermal treatment device comprising:
second container which accommodates the object, on which the thin film is formed by the sputtering device, the second control device performing the hydrothermal treatment, with the thin film at a temperature of 100°C to 180°C, using the alkaline solution with a pH of 9 to 11 [0035-0036],
The Examiner takes the position that “controlling the sputtering device to make an atomic number ratio (calcium/phosphorus) of calcium to phosphorus in the thin film range from 1.0 to 3.0” is functional language of the apparatus. The apparatus of Ozeki would be inherently capable of performing this function because it teaches forming a film of hydroxyapatite on an implant.
The Examiner takes the position that “adjusting a pressure in the second container by changing the temperature during the hydrothermal treatment” is functional language of the apparatus. The apparatus of Ozeki would be inherently capable of performing this function because it teaches a pressure vessel wherein the temperature is variable [0035-0036].
Ozeki does not teach the first control device switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency.
Abraham directed to a sputtering method wherein a pulsed asymmetric AC discharge provides a negative voltage from the pulse asymmetric AC voltage waveform to generate high-density plasma from feed gas atoms and sputtered target material atoms between the cathode sputtering target and the anode of the magnetically enhanced sputtering source. The positive voltage of the pulsed asymmetrical AC voltage waveform attracts plasma electrons to the cathode sputtering area and generates positive plasma potential. The positive plasma potential accelerates gas and sputtered target material ions from the cathode sputtering target area towards the substrate that improves deposition rate and increases ion bombardment on the substrate [0031]. Therefore Abraham teaches a first control device switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first control device of Ozeki by switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency, as taught by Abraham, because it would generate high-density plasma and improve deposition rates and increase ion bombardment of the substrate[0031].
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki teaches the pH of the alkaline solution is 10.5 or greater [0036]. Claims 1 and 2 are apparatus claims. The Examiner takes the position that the pH and the solution are materials worked upon by the apparatus and therefore do not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Ozeki teaches the first control device executes control to make the thickness of the thin film range from 1 μm to 2 μm [0028]. Claims 1 and 3 are apparatus claims. The Examiner takes the position that the thickness is materials worked upon by the apparatus and therefore do not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 4, Ozeki teaches the antibacterial metal is silver, in the material, {a weight of the silver/(the weight of the silver + a weight of the hydroxyapatite)}, calculated based on the weight of the silver and the weight of the hydroxyapatite, is 0.2 or greater, and an antibacterial activity value of the thin film is 6 or greater.
Claims 4 is an apparatus claims. The Examiner takes the position that the material is a materials worked upon by the apparatus and therefore do not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2114 and 2115. The apparatus of Ozeki would be fully capable of providing a material meeting the requirements of claim 4 because it examines silver content that exceed 10% atomic weight (~ 1% weight percent Ag).
Regarding claim 5, Ozeki teaches a formation method of a hydroxyapatite-containing thin film, the formation method comprising:
forming a thin film of a material including an antibacterial metal and hydroxyapatite on a surface of an object by sputtering, the object being an artificial joint or a dental implant [0011], [0032];
and performing hydrothermal treatment on the object, on which the thin film is formed, using an alkaline solution [0036],
the sputtering comprising:
providing the object, on which the thin film is yet to be formed, on a first surface of a holder in a first container (vacuum chamber, [0032]),
and providing the material on a second surface of an electrode facing the first surface of the holder in the first container [0032];
filling the first container with an inert gas (argon, [00323]);
controlling the filling with the inert gas to control a pressure in the first container [0032],
forming the thin film on the object to make an atomic number ratio (calcium/phosphorus) of calcium to phosphorus in the thin film range from 1.0 to 3.0 [0039] and to make a thickness of the thin film range from 0.1 μm to 10 μm [0028],
the hydrothermal treatment comprising:
accommodating the object, on which the thin film is formed by the sputtering, in a second container; and using the alkaline solution with a pH of 9 to 11, with the thin film at a temperature of 100°C to 180°C [0036].
Ozeki teaches adjusting a pressure in the second container by changing the temperature because it teaches using an autoclave to perform the hydrothermal treatment. It would be necessary to change the temperature of the autoclave from room temperature to its operating temperature of 100-150 degrees C and back to ambient temperature which would necessarily effect the pressure within the autoclave.
Ozeki does not teach switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency.
Abraham directed to a sputtering method wherein a pulsed asymmetric AC discharge provides a negative voltage from the pulse asymmetric AC voltage waveform to generate high-density plasma from feed gas atoms and sputtered target material atoms between the cathode sputtering target and the anode of the magnetically enhanced sputtering source. The positive voltage of the pulsed asymmetrical AC voltage waveform attracts plasma electrons to the cathode sputtering area and generates positive plasma potential. The positive plasma potential accelerates gas and sputtered target material ions from the cathode sputtering target area towards the substrate that improves deposition rate and increases ion bombardment on the substrate [0031]. Therefore Abraham teaches a first control device switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first control device of Ozeki by switching a positive pole and a negative pole of the electrode at a predetermined frequency, as taught by Abraham, because it would generate high-density plasma and improve deposition rates and increase ion bombardment of the substrate[0031].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Applicant argues that Ozeki does not control the pressure in the first container.
The Examiner disagrees because Ozeki teaches evacuating the chamber to a predetermined vacuum [0032] inletting argon gas and maintaining the sputtering pressure at 0.5 Pa [0039]. Therefore the pressure of the container is controlled for sputtering.
Applicant argues that Ozeki does not teach a second control device performing hydrothermal treatment wherein pressure is adjusted in the second container by changing the temperature during the hydrothermal treatment.
The Examiner disagrees because the Ozeki teaches the autoclave is pressure resistant therefore inherently capable of operating at different pressure. Ozeki teach the autoclave is capable of operating at different temperatures. Therefore the autoclave of Ozeki is inherently capable of performing the functions recited by claim 1. Pressure control does not appear to be a function of claim 1. Control over the temperature is inherent to Ozeki because it teaches operation over a temperature range.
When applying Applicant’s argument to claim 5, a method claim, the Examiner notes that the steps of the method claim may be performed in any order. MPEP 2111. The autoclave is a sealed container heated to high temperatures for processing the object at a high pressure. The Examiner takes the position that the heating of the autoclave reads on Applicant’s “adjusting a pressure in the second container by changing the temperature during the hydrothermal treatment” would necessarily occur after placing the object into the second container.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794