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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 amended
Claims 1-10 pending
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) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seleznev (PG Pub 2011/0045209 A1) in view of Sparkes (PG Pub 2014/0234551 A1), and with Belle-Petersen (PG Pub 2002/0081080 A1, Used as evidentiary support).
Consider Claim 1, Seleznev teaches the metallization process onto ceramic substrate (abstract), teaches the process of using metal particles for coating the ceramic substrate [0024], as the metal coating process is performed using laser (laser cladding) process [0026], using metal material (first material) such as copper, silver, cobalt, chromium or alloy thereof (Claim 3), where metals (such as copper) melts during the coating process [0028], where the melting process is followed by solidification of the melted/molten metal material (abstract).
Seleznev does not teach the laser and irradiation process.
However, Sparkes is in the process of coating powder onto a substrate using laser beam and creating a heated region in the irradiated aera (abstract), using Co-Cr alloy/Stellite powder [0177], teaches the process of sweeping the laser beam (16) in direction (A) while simultaneously feeding the metal powder (14) onto the surface of the substrata (10) forming a coating layer (12) ([0112], [0114], figures 1-1A) forming an irradiation area (figures 1-1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Seleznev with Sparkes to coating the ceramic substrate with metal particles beam using laser beam while moving/sweeping the laser melting the metal powder material forming metallic layer into the ceramic substrate, to provide with a process of forming patterned coating layer with small localized area of irradiation [0184].
Considered Claims 2-4, the combined Seleznev (with Sparkes) teaches the using copper powder (Seleznev, [0051]), and other metals such as silver, cobalt, chromium or alloy thereof (Seleznev, Claim 3).
Consider Claims 5-6, the combined Seleznev (with Sparkes) teaches use of Nd-YAG (Nd doped YAG crystal) laser (Sparkes, [0008]), where the Nd-YAG laser operate in the range of 520-680 nm (as evidence by Belle-Petersen, [0024]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Considered Claims 7 and 9, the combined Seleznev (with Sparkes) teaches the substrate is made from AlN (Seleznev, [0021]), where the metal particles (first material) includes such as copper, silver, or an alloy thereof (Seleznev, Claim 3).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seleznev (PG Pub 2011/0045209 A1) in view of Sparkes (PG Pub 2014/0234551 A1), and with Belle-Petersen (PG Pub 2002/0081080 A1, Used as evidentiary support), in further view of Bunker (PG Pub 2012/0164376 A1).
Considered Claims 8 and 10, the combined Seleznev (with Sparkes) teaches the laser spot diameter of 6 mm, with processing speed of 500 mm/s, and laser power of 4000 W (Sparkes, [0153]-[0155]). Leading to power density of 0.07 J/mm, where some of the metals include copper (MP of 1085℃), silver (MP of 962 ℃) or alloy thereof (Seleznev, Claim 3).
The combined Seleznev (with Sparkes) does not teach the claimed range.
However, Bunker is in the process of deposition metal or superalloy substrate [0039] using laser beam (18) directed toward powder beam (20) forming a coating (12) onto a substrate (16) (figure 1, [0031]), teaches the Nd:YAG with laser energy power ranging from 1000 watt/cm2 to 10,000,000 watt/cm2 [0032].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Seleznev (with Sparkes) with Bunker to use Nd:YAG with higher laser power to easily melt the copper and or Silver metal during the high laser sweeping beam of 500mm/s, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Leading to having a laser energy density for a power of 10,000,000 watt of 200 J/mm2 (107 watt/100 mm/500 m/s), and for 1000 watt of 0.02 J/mm2, (103 watt/100 mm/500 m/s), encompassing the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seleznev with Sparkes.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against the prior art of Seleznev, on the following points;
Seleznev disclose the process of ceramic oxidation step such that in [0022] states “In other embodiments of the invention, an oxide, spinel or other oxygen-containing, meaning containing oxygen as a substantial component of chemical composition, ceramic substrate can be used as a substrate”.
However, Seleznev in the same paragraph continued stating “In other embodiments of the invention, an oxide, spinel or other oxygen-containing, meaning containing oxygen as a substantial component of chemical composition, ceramic substrate can be used as a substrate without oxidizing treatment”. Meaning that oxidation step to the surface of the substrate is an optional, as other choices such as using “ceramic substrate without oxidizing treatment” is also available.
Seleznev disclose in the first step of “deposition precursor metal coating step”, such as laser cladding, where this deposition step is accomplished by various thermal evaporation methods and only one part of the overall method of Seleznev. And also added that; “No details are provided regarding this deposition step, including the laser cladding, other than those disclosed in paragraph [0027], which refers to a particular flame spraying process for the deposition step”.
However, in the prior paragraph [0026] Seleznev stated “Alternatively other process or combination of processes, could be used to produce the precursor metal coating on the ceramic substrate, including, but not limited to physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, kinetic spray, thermal spray, thick film printing, ink jet printing, electroless plating, electrolytic plating, slurry dipping, slurry spraying, slurry brushing, automated syringe or nozzle dispensing, laser cladding etc.” Therefore, one would see that Seleznev give multiple options other than laser cladding, such as thermal spraying, which would also require laser to melt the metal powders. Moreover, the claims as filed does not restrict the type of deposition process to one to more type(s) of deposition.
In Seleznev’s deposition step, it is followed by multiple/three heating steps, discretization treatment by heating in an oxidation atmosphere, effecting the cap shape, and the eutectic property.
However, it is unclear what those additional steps that are performed after the solidification of the molting step (that are not even restricted by the claims) have to do with the claims at hand. The claims at hand does not restrict from having additional steps after the claims steps.
Seleznev disclose the precursor coating is not strongly adhere to the substrate, as in paragraph [0024], where the coating is later subjected to heat treatment.
However, this is correct to some degree but not completely. Yes, as the precursor coating is initially deposited onto the substrate, but also “nominally adhere to the ceramic substrate, so that if the substrate is turned coated face down, the precursor coating does not fall off under gravity force” [0024]. Keeping in mind that this step is prior to laser cladding step, which is the main part of the heating treatment that is performed after the coating step with the precursor.
Seleznev disclose only a photolithography method using copper ink, such as electronic conductive paste containing copper powder.
However, as replied above to the deposition argument, paragraph [0026] discloses other deposition processes, such as thermal spraying which also (like laser cladding) melt the metal powder using laser. Moreover, the claims does not require a specific deposition process.
The applicant argued against the combination of Seleznev with Sparkes is not proper, as the examiner does not make it clear which one of the three heating steps, or the cladding laser of Seleznev is modified with laser process of Sparkes.
However, the argued three heating steps of Seleznev were not addressed in the rejection. Additionally, the rejection stated “Seleznev does not teach the laser and irradiation process” prior to the modification with laser process of Sparkes, thus the modification obviously is regarding the laser cladding of Seleznev, not the unrelated three heating treatment, which occur after the laser cladding step.
The applicant argued against Sparkes, on the ground that Sparkes is in the cold spraying process, where the cold spraying improve the coating density after deposition, and provide with a controlled movement of the powder beam and the laser heating creating spatial temperature distribution at the metal powder footprint region, resulting in an improved deposition, as in [0026].
This sounds that Sparkes have greater benefits that expected.
The applicant argued that the laser cladding and cold spraying are different processes, and does not justify the use to modified one another.
However, the combination was not to replace the cold laser unit with the cladding laser unit entirely, it was to direct the laser beam (of Seleznev) while moving/sweeping the laser (of Sparkes) melting the metal powder material forming metallic layer into the ceramic substrate (of Seleznev), following the teaching of Sparkes of moving process using the laser in the cold spraying process.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights