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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 3/4/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 contains the abbreviation “PVD” in lines 5, 8, and 11. The abbreviation should be fully spelled out before being used at the first time, in the claims, e.g. “physical vapor deposition (PVD)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of a rubber roller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the surface of a rubber roller" will be considered to mean "a surface of a rubber roller".
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the deposition time" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the deposition time" will be considered to mean "a deposition time".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cooling time" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the cooling time" will be considered to mean "a cooling time".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the buffer layer formation time" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the buffer layer formation time" will be considered to mean "a buffer layer formation time".
Claims 6-7, 9, and 12 depend from claim 5 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 5 contains the limitation “the cooling time” in line 14. It is unclear if this is intended to refer to the cooling time after the buffer layer formation in line 13 of claim 5, or the cooling time after the plasma cleaning in line 10-11 in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends. For the purposes of examination, “the cooling time” will be considered to refer to either the cooling time after the buffer layer formation or the cooling time after the plasma cleaning.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 12 depend from claim 5 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 6 contains the limitations “the coating is performed in three cycles” in lines 3-4 and the limitation “completing a total of four coating cycles” in lines 5-6. It is unclear if “the coating” is intended to comprise three or four coating cycles. For the purposes of examination, “the coating” will be considered to include three cycles “each consisting of a coating time of 18 to 33 minutes and a cooling time of 8 to 33 minutes” plus the “additional coating” in line 5.
Claims 7 and 12 depends from claim 6 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, “such as Ar” will be considered to be an example only.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the linear ion source" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination "the linear ion source" will be considered to mean "a linear ion source".
Claim 10 contains the limitations “the coating is performed in three cycles” in line 8 and the limitation “completing a total of four coating cycles” in line 10. It is unclear if “the coating” is intended to comprise three or four coating cycles. For the purposes of examination, “the coating” will be considered to include three cycles “each consisting of a coating time of 18 to 33 minutes and a cooling time of 8 to 33 minutes” plus the “additional coating” in line 9-10.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fourth and final cycle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination "the fourth and final cycle" will be considered to mean "the additional coating".
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchi (JP 2009035819 A, hereafter Uchi ‘819, with machine translation) in view of Adachi et al. (JP 2016014161 A, hereafter Adachi ‘161, with machine translation).
Note: references to Uchi ‘819 and Adachi ‘161 refer to the location in the machine translations.
Claim 1: Uchi ‘819 teaches a method of forming a diamond like carbon coating layer on a surface of a rubber cylinder ([0001]) comprising:
alternately repeating a deposition process for forming the DLC layer and a cooling process (Fig. 4, [0023]), where the DLC coating is formed within a time frame that prevents defects and deterioration from occurring ([0008], [0024]), where the DLC layer forming steps are following by cooling (Fig. 4, [0023]).
With respect to claim 1, Uchi ‘819 does not explicitly teach that the rubber cylinder is a rubber roller.
Adachi ‘161 teaches a method of forming a diamond like carbon coating on a surface of a rubber cylinder ([0001]). Adachi ‘161 teaches that the rubber cylinder can be a rubber roller ([0001]). Both Adachi ‘161 and Uchi ‘819 teach methods of forming a diamond like carbon coating on a surface of a rubber cylinder (‘819, [0001]; ‘161, [0001]).
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 a rubber roller as taught by Adachi ‘161 as the rubber cylinder used in the method taught by Uchi ‘819 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 2: Uchi ‘819 teaches that a ratio of deposition time to cooling time for forming the DLC coating layer can be 1:1 ([0020], [0024]).
Claim 3: Uchi ‘819 teaches that the method for forming the DLC coating layer can comprise plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition ([0010]).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchi ‘819 in view of Adachi et al. ‘161 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barbee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0099123, hereafter Barbee ‘123).
Claim 4: The modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Uchi ‘819 further teaches that the DLC coating layer is formed in a vacuum chamber ([0007]) and comprises loading the rubber cylinder into the vacuum chamber and performing vacuumization ([0007], [0022]).
With respect to claim 4, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the method comprises performing plasma cleaning prior to vacuum deposition, wherein the plasma cleaning is conducted by supplying an inert gas into the chamber and generating plasma, selecting a cleaning time in the range of 20 to 40 minutes, and providing a cooling time in the range of 15 to 30 minutes after the plasma cleaning.
Barbee ‘123 teaches a method of depositing carbon coatings by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (abstract, [0009]). Barbee ‘123 teaches that the method can include, prior to depositing the carbon coating, performing a plasma cleaning ([0016]), the plasma cleaning comprising supplying argon gas, which is an inert gas, to the vacuum chamber ([0016], [0058]) and selecting a cleaning time of about 10 to about 30 minutes ([0058]). Barbee ‘123 teaches that this cleans the surface to be coated and prepares it at the microscopic level for coating ([0057]). Both Barbee ‘123 and Uchi ‘819 teach methods of depositing carbon coatings by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (‘819, [0001], [0010]; ‘123, abstract, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of, prior to depositing the carbon coating, performing a plasma cleaning, the plasma cleaning comprising supplying argon gas to the vacuum chamber and selecting a cleaning time of about 10 to about 30 minutes taught by Barbee ‘123 to the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because this cleans the surface to be coated and prepares it at the microscopic level for coating, as taught by Barbee ‘123.
With respect to claim 4, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the cleaning time is in the range of 20 to 40 minutes. However, the claimed cleaning time range of 20 to 40 minutes is obvious over the cleaning time range of about 10 to about 30 minutes taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 4, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the method providing a cooling time in the range of 15 to 30 minutes after the plasma cleaning.
However, Uchi ‘819 teaches that the method can include providing a cooling time after each plasma step ([0010]) where the duration of the cooling time affects the amount of accumulated heat released by the electrodes ([0010]) which affects the deterioration of the workpiece ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cooling time after the plasma cleaning in the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 and optimize the cooling time because the duration of a cooling time after each plasma step affects the amount of accumulated heat released by the electrodes which affects the deterioration of the workpiece, as taught by Uchi ‘819.
Claim 8: With respect to claim 8, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the plasma cleaning includes an inert gas flow rate of 50 to 300 sccm, a current of 0.5 to 2.0 A and a voltage of 1000 to 2000 C to generate the plasma, and a bias current of 0.5 to 0.9 A and a bias voltage of 50 to 300 V.
Barbee ‘123 teaches a method of depositing carbon coatings by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (abstract, [0009]). Barbee ‘123 teaches that the method can include performing a plasma cleaning ([0016]). Barbee ‘123 teaches that the inert gas flow rate, RF current and voltage, which is used to generate plasma, and bias current and voltage are process conditions of the plasma cleaning which affect the removal of contaminants and unreactive layers ([0058]). Both Barbee ‘123 and Uchi ‘819 teach methods of depositing carbon coatings by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (‘819, [0001], [0010]; ‘123, abstract, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the inert gas flow rate, RF current and voltage, and bias current and voltage in the plasma cleaning step of the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because they are process conditions of the plasma cleaning which affect the removal of contaminants and unreactive layers, as taught by Barbee ‘123. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchi ‘819 in view of Adachi et al. ‘161 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kohler et al. (U.S. Patent 5,464,667, hereafter Kohler ‘667).
Claim 10: The modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 teach the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Uchi ‘819 further teaches that the diamond like carbon coating is formed using a linear ion source (Fig. 1, [0007]), that the method includes supplying a hydrocarbon gas ([0019]), and that the coating can comprise 3 cycles, each with a coating time and cooling time, followed by an additional coating (Fig. 4, [0023]), where the time of the coating and cooling steps affects defects and deterioration ([0008], [0024]).
With respect to claim 10, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the coating times are 18 to 33 minutes and the cooling times are 8 to 33 minutes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating and cooling times in the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because the time of the coating and cooling steps affects defects and deterioration, as taught by Uchi ‘819. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
With respect to claim 10, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that a current of 0.5 to 2.0 A and a voltage of 1000 to 2000 C are applied to the linear ion source, that the hydrocarbon gas has a flow rate of 50 to 200 sccm, and a bias voltage of 50 to 300 V are applied.
Kohler ‘667 teaches a method of depositing a diamond like carbon coating using plasma deposition (abstract, col 1 ln 36-48). Kohler ‘667 teaches that the gas flow rate, current and voltage, and bias current and voltage affects powder formation during deposition (col 12 ln 52-col 13 ln 11). Both Kohler ‘667 and Uchi ‘819 teach methods of depositing a diamond like carbon coating using plasma deposition (‘819, [0001], [0010]; ‘667, abstract, col 1 ln 36-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gas flow rate, current and voltage, and bias current and voltage in the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because they affect powder formation during deposition, as taught by Kohler ‘667.
Claim 11: Uchi ‘819 teaches that the method can include an additional cooling period after the additional coating (Fig. 4, [0023]), where the time of the cooling steps affects defects and deterioration ([0008], [0024]).
With respect to claim 11, the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 do not explicitly teach that the additional cooling period is 8 to 33 minutes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cooling times in the method taught by the modified teachings of Uchi ‘819 because the time of the coating and cooling steps affects defects and deterioration, as taught by Uchi ‘819. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method for forming a diamond like carbon coating layer on the surface of a rubber roller including, after the cooling time following the plasma cleaning, a buffer layer is formed prior to the formation of the DLC coating layer, the buffer layer comprises one of CrN and CrC, TiN and TiC, or WN and WC, the formation of the CrN, TiN, or WN layer is carried out by applying power to the PVD source equipped with the sputter target and supplying an inert gas an nitrogen, wherein only the inert gas is supplied at the initial stage and the nitrogen supply is gradually increased to form a gradient layer as to the context of claim 5.
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/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights