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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be narrative form and less than 150 words, the abstract is currently about 250 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (Ice-templated synthesis of multicomponent porous coatings via vapour sublimation and deposition polymerization.”
As to claim 1, Chang et al. discloses a process for forming a film (porous coating – see abstract) comprising the steps of forming an ice layer on a glass substrate .The ice layer is formed by transitioning from a water vapor phase (gaseous state) to a solid-state ice frost with skipping the liquid phase due to the instant temperature difference between the substrate and environment (this equates providing a workpiece into a chamber device/ controlling the workpiece to within a desublimation temperature range causing desublimation process forming a solid state sacrificial ice material) (see page 5, 1st full paragraph). The process further comprises the step of gradually sublimating the ice layer into a gaseous state; and providing monomers within the chamber which deposit onto the sublimating ice layer via an adsorption process; and polymerizing into a polymer as the ice layer is sublimated leaving a porous polymer layer formed on the workpiece surface (see abstract, page 2, section 1- last paragraph; page 2- section 2 – first paragraph).
As to claim 11, the material of the polymer layer is poly(p-xylylene) (see abstract, page 2, section 2 ).
As to claims 12 and 14, the gaseous state of the sacrificial material is composed of water (water vapor), the sublimation temperature is -50C and is performed at ambient conditions (1 atm) (see page 5, 1st full paragraph).
As to claims 18, the surface can be curved (see section 2. Page 5, second column).
As to claim 19, the surface is the outer surface of the substrate (see section 2. and figures 1 and 2)
As to claim 20, the workpiece can be formed of a metal, polymer, or ceramic material (see section 2, page 5 – end of first paragraph).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Ice-templated synthesis of multicomponent porous coatings via vapour sublimation and deposition polymerization” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sautter (US 11919036).
The teachings of Chang et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Chang et al. fails to disclose removing the gaseous state sacrificial material from the chamber device as required by claim 2.
Sautter discloses a vapor deposition process for applying parylene to a metal surface of an electronic device (see abstract). Sautter states a step of removing oxygen or moisture from the chamber prior to treating the surface with the vapor of the chemical composition to form the parylene layer (see col. 9, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stop supplying the water vapor after ice formation and before supplying the monomers of Chang et al. as taught by Sautter One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming a parylene coating on a substrate where Sautter further teaches the removal of moisture from the chamber prior to deposition.
As to claim 3, the gaseous state of the sacrificial material is composed of water (water vapor), the sublimation temperature is -50C and is performed at ambient conditions (1 atm) (see page 5, 1st full paragraph).
As to claim 4, Chang et al. states the sublimating surface used in the deposition process of the monomers can be ice or dry ice (see section 2, page 2, 1st paragraph). Dry ice is a solid from of carbon dioxide that transitions directly from a gas to a solid phase at atmospheric pressure. Chang et al. fails to teach explicitly teach the desublimating temperature is small than or equal to -80C a and the pressure is 1 atm – 5 atm as required by the claim.
Chang expressly teaches the use of dry ice as the sublimating sacrificial layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the gaseous carbon dioxide into the chamber, cool the substrate to a temperature well below the sublimation temperature of CO2 (about 78 C at 1 atm) I order to form the solid CO2 by desublimation and then heat the substrate to sublime the CO2 layer during deposition. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selection a desublimation temperature of less than or equal to 80C through routine experimentation to successfully form the dry ice sacrificial layer which is dictated by known physical properties of carbon dioxide.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Ice-templated synthesis of multicomponent porous coatings via vapour sublimation and deposition polymerization” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Branton et al. (US 20130288182).
The teachings of Chang et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Chang et al. fails to teach the chamber device includes a desublimation chamber and a sublimation and deposition chamber and moving the workpiece from the desublimation chamber to the sublimation and deposition chamber as required by claim 5.
Branton et al. discloses a cluster tool with an ice condensation chamber where water vapor is leaked and condensed as ice on a cold substrate and a separate deposition chamber to which the ice patterned substrate is transferred for deposition (see 0020-0021 and 0027). Branton et al. teaches separate chambers to prevent contamination (see 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chang et al. to include the multi-chamber cluster tool of Branton et al. to form the desublimation and sublimation/deposition of Chang et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to a two-step process of desublimation to form ice and a deposition process where Branton et al. teaches a cluster device for performing the two different process steps that reduces contamination.
As to claim 6, the gaseous state of the sacrificial material is composed of water (water vapor), the sublimation temperature is -50C and is performed at ambient conditions (1 atm) (see page 5, 1st full paragraph).
Claim(s) 8-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Ice-templated synthesis of multicomponent porous coatings via vapour sublimation and deposition polymerization” as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
The teachings of Chang et al. as applied to claims 1and 11 are as stated above.
As to claim 8, Chang et al. states the sublimation deposition temperature can be -4C, 5C, 15 C, to 35 C in order control the pore size of the final coating (see page 6, 2nd full paragraph of the first column and Fig. 3a). Chang therefore teaches the process conditions are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chang et al. to include using the temperature and pressure as claimed through routine experimentation in order to optimize the resultant film especially since Chang et al. teaches the use of a temperature point within the range and there is no evidence of criticality in using the claimed range.
As to claim 9, the gaseous state of the sacrificial material is composed of water (water vapor), the sublimation temperature is -50C and is performed at ambient conditions (1 atm) (see page 5, 1st full paragraph).
As to claims 10, 13 and 15, Chang et al. does state the sublimating surface used in the deposition process of the monomers can be ice or dry ice (see section 2, page 2, 1st paragraph). Dry ice is a solid from of carbon dioxide that transitions directly from a gas to a solid phase at atmospheric pressure.
Chang et al. fails to teach explicitly teach the desublimating temperature is small than or equal to -80C a and the pressure is 1 atm – 5 atm as required by claims 13, and 15.
Chang expressly teaches the use of dry ice as the sublimating sacrificial layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the gaseous carbon dioxide into the chamber, cool the substrate to a temperature well below the sublimation temperature of CO2 (about 78 C at 1 atm) I order to form the solid CO2 by desublimation and then heat the substrate to sublime the CO2 layer during deposition. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selection a desublimation temperature of less than or equal to 80C through routine experimentation to successfully form the dry ice sacrificial layer which is dictated by known physical properties of carbon dioxide.
As to claim 7, Chang et al. states the sublimating surface used in the deposition process of the monomers can be ice or dry ice (see section 2, page 2, 1st paragraph). Dry ice is a solid from of carbon dioxide that transitions directly from a gas to a solid phase at atmospheric pressure. Chang et al. fails to teach explicitly teach the desublimating temperature is small than or equal to -80C a and the pressure is 1 atm – 5 atm as required by the claim.
Chang expressly teaches the use of dry ice as the sublimating sacrificial layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the gaseous carbon dioxide into the chamber, cool the substrate to a temperature well below the sublimation temperature of CO2 (about 78 C at 1 atm) I order to form the solid CO2 by desublimation and then heat the substrate to sublime the CO2 layer during deposition. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to selection a desublimation temperature of less than or equal to 80C through routine experimentation to successfully form the dry ice sacrificial layer which is dictated by known physical properties of carbon dioxide.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (Ice-templated synthesis of multicomponent porous coatings via vapour sublimation and deposition polymerization” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Anand et al. (US 2021/0395588).
The teachings of Chang et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Chang et al. fails to disclose the relative vapor concentration is greater than or equal to 30% during the desublimation process as required by claim 17.
Anand et al. teaches desublimation of water vapor into ice/frost. Anand et al. states the desublimation depends upon surface temperature and ambient water vapor supersaturation (see 0337). The concentration is therefore a result effective variable. Anand et al. further investigates the results of using different relative humidities ranging from 15 – 80% (see 338) where desublimation occurs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chang et al. to include using a relative water vapor concentration of the gaseous state within the claimed range through routine experimentation in order to optimize the formation of the ice layer as taught by Anand et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the use of gaseous iodine to form a solid layer through desublimation and further using the solid layer to form to a film through adsorption of monomers on the surface of the solid iodine as it sublimates as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 11161957) discloses a process for forming a 3D porous structure of parylene comprising providing a sacrificial solid template by freezing (see col. 2, line 23; col. 4, lines 24-58); vapor depositing a polymer monomer onto the sacrificial solid template resulting in adsorption of the monomers onto the sacrificial solid template (see col. 3, lines 56-65) while the sacrificial template goes through a sublimation process (see col. 4, lines 59-62); the template is removed during the sublimation process and the 3D porous polymer structure remains (see col. 7, lines 31-34).
Williams (US 20170317277) discloses using an ice layer formed using carbon dioxide as a sacrificial layer (see 0077).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712