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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Japan on 1/29/2025 and 9/26/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign priority applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori et al. (JP 2002037683, reference is made to the provided English translation) in view of Sun et al. (“Structural, infrared optical and mechanical properties of the magnesium fluoride films”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tomonori teaches a structural member comprising: an alumina sintered ceramic material (see 0026-0034 and claims 1 and 2); and a protective fluoride based film covering the base material to a thickness of 1 microns (see 0026-0034 and claims 1 and 2), wherein magnesium fluoride or calcium fluoride is the deposited protective film (see 0026-0034). Tomonori fails to explicitly teach the indentation hardness of the protective film.
However, Sun teaches that the indentation hardness of magnesium fluoride can be controlled during deposition (see Section 2.2, 3.3 and Figure 8a-d) to a hardness less than 8 GPa (see Figures 8a-d) and that the hardness is a result-effective variable that increases the mechanical strength of the film (Section 3.3) and ultimately its durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomonori’s structural member by optimizing the protective film to a hardness less than 8 GPa as disclosed by Sun. One would have been motivated to make this modification to control the hardness of the resultant film and yield an optimized protective film while also minimizing the amount of energy needed to prepare the film during deposition/after treatment.
2. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori in view of Piao et al. (“Nanoindentation induced anisotropy of deformation and damage behaviors of MgF2 crystals”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tomonori teaches a structural member comprising: an alumina sintered ceramic material (see 0026-0034 and claims 1 and 2); and a protective fluoride based film covering the base material to a thickness of 1 microns (see 0026-0034 and claims 1 and 2), wherein magnesium fluoride or calcium fluoride is the deposited protective film (see 0026-0034). Tomonori fails to explicitly teach the indentation hardness of the protective film.
However, Piao teaches that the indentation hardness of magnesium fluoride crystals can be between 3.93-6.2 GPa based on the crystal structure (Sections 2.1 and 3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomonori’s structural member by optimizing the protective film to a hardness less than 8 GPa as disclosed by Piao through optimization of the crystal structure of the deposited film. One would have been motivated to make this modification to control the hardness of the resultant film and yield an optimized protective film that is durable.
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De et al. (“Surface characterization of magnesium fluoride thin films prepared by a fluorine trapping based non-reactive sputtering technique”).
Regarding claim 5, Tomonori in view of Sun make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the crystal forming the protective film has a crystallize size in the range as claimed. However, De teaches preparing magnesium fluoride films to have crystallite sizes of 6.5 nm and 10 nm (Section 3.2) and that the crystallite size can be controlled by the deposition process (Section 3.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomonori in view of Sun’s structural member by controlling the crystallite size to be in the range as claimed as disclosed by De. One would have been motivated to make this modification as De teaches controlling the crystallite size through the deposition process to yield optimal surface structures of the deposited magnesium fluoride film.
4. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori in view of Piao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De.
Regarding claim 5, Tomonori in view of Piao make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach the crystal forming the protective film has a crystallize size in the range as claimed. However, De teaches preparing magnesium fluoride films to have crystallite sizes of 6.5 nm and 10 nm (Section 3.2) and that the crystallite size can be controlled by the deposition process (Section 3.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tomonori in view of Piao’s structural member by controlling the crystallite size to be in the range as claimed as disclosed by De. One would have been motivated to make this modification as De teaches controlling the crystallite size through the deposition process to yield optimal surface structures of the deposited magnesium fluoride film.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
July 7, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights