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 the Claims
Claims 13, 14, 16-19, 21, and 23 are pending and rejected. Claims 13 and 21 are amended. Claims 15, 20, and 22 are cancelled. Claims 1-12 are withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 16-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioka, US 6,448,331 B1 in view of Tamura, US 2016/0108250 A1, Nonaka, US 2018/0149774 A1, and Harada, US 6,202,653 B1.
Regarding claim 13 and 21, Ioka teaches a porous film-manufacturing method (a process of producing a silica-organic polymer composite and removing the organic polymer from the composite to form a porous silica thin film, abstract), comprising:
a step of mixing a solvent that includes a tertiary amine, water, and a methoxypropanol with a silicon compound and preparing a mixed solution (forming a composition comprising (A) at least one alkoxysilane selected from a group including tetraalkoxysilanes, (B) at least one organic polymer, and (C) a solvent, Col. 4, lines 3-50, where the alkoxysilane is selected from a list including tetramethoxysilane, Col. 8, lines 26-53, where the solvent is selected from a group including propylene glycol monomethyl ether (i.e., a methoxypropanol), Col. 12, lines 1-40, the composition incudes a catalyst for promoting hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation reaction of the alkoxysilane, where the catalyst is selected from a group including triethylamine, i.e., a tertiary amine, Col. 12, lines 51-61, and water is required for the hydrolysis of the alkoxysilane, Col. 13, lines 11-28, where the materials are stirred, Col. 18, lines 39-50 and Col. 22, lines 9-16, indicating that the materials will be mixed);
a step of agitating the mixed solution (where the solutions are stirred, Col. 18, lines 39-50 and Col. 22, lines 9-16);
a step of applying the mixed solution after agitation on a substrate and forming a coating film (where the composition is coated onto a substrate, Col. 13, lines 55-65 and the examples indicate that the stirred solution is cast onto a substrate for gelling and forming a thin film, Col. 18, lines 39-50 and Col. 22, lines 9-23, such that the agitated solution will be applied to the substrate); and
a step of heating the coating film and forming a porous film (where the film undergoes hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation at 30 to 150°C for gelation, Col. 14, lines 56-67, dried at 30 to 250°C and calcined at 300 to 500°C to form a porous film, Col. 15, lines 13-28 and Col. 16, line 1-16, such that the coated film will be heated to form a porous film).
Ioka further teaches forming a thin film from the composition and subjecting the thin film to a hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation reaction (Col. 13, lines 35-44). They teach that the hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation reaction can be completed within several minutes to several days (Col. 15, lines 1-12). They teach stirring for 2 hours (Col. 18, lines 39-51) or for 4 hours (Col. 22, lines 9-23).
They do not teach the refractive index of the film.
Ioka teaches using the film as an insulating film with a low dielectric constant in a semiconductor device, where the film is a porous silica film (abstract). They teach that having a porous silica film lowers the dielectric constant (Col. 15, lines 38-60).
Tamura teaches a curable composition comprising a siloxane oligomer (a) formed through hydrolysis and condensation of alkoxysilanes containing at least an alkoxysilane A and an alkoxysilane B, inorganic fine particles (b), and a polymerization initiator (c), and a base generator (g) (abstract and 0041). They teach that the alkoxysilane B includes tetramethoxysilane (0055). They teach including triethylamine as a catalyst for promoting the hydrolysis-condensation reaction (0060). They teach that the hydrolysis and condensation occurs in a solvent such as a glycol with water (0059). They teach that the heating temperature and heating time can be selected as desired, for example, heating at 50°C for 24 hours with stirring (0060). Therefore, Tamura teaches performing a hydrolysis and condensation reaction of a mixture including an alkoxysilane such as tetramethoxysilane, a glycol solvent, water, and triethylamine by stirring for 24 hours at 50°C, where the heating temperature and time can be selected as desired. Tamura teaches using their film having as a low refractive index layer or as an insulating film material (0039), indicating that porous silica-based films are useful for insulating layers and as low refractive index layers. Tamura further teaches that their film has a low refractive index of 1.35 or less (0038), indicating that it is desirable to form films similar to Ioka’s with a refractive index of 1.35 or less.
Nonaka teaches an optical functional film (abstract). They teach that the film is manufactured by conducting multi-layer coating using compositions comprising two kinds of polysiloxane and of solvent on a substrate (abstract). They teach that the film comprises siliceous material (0016). They teach that it is possible to prepare one layer having a lower refractive index than the other layer if the one layer is made to have a porous structure by adjusting the heating condition, etc. (0103), indicating that a porous structure has a lower refractive index. They teach that a layer consisting of a siliceous material having a refractive index of 1.4 or less can be formed using a composite containing a polysiloxane and silicon oxide nanoparticles (0075). They teach that by reacting a siloxane polymer having a silanol group, a silane monomer having a silanol group or mixture thereof with silicon oxide nanoparticles in a mixed solvent of an aqueous solvent and an organic solvent in the presence of a catalyst a polysiloxane cured product with voids can be obtained (0075). They teach that voids are formed around the nanoparticles when curing a film containing such a composite, where a refractive index of around 1.05 to 1.40 can be obtained depending on the void ratio (0076). Therefore, Nonaka teaches that the refractive index of a film depends on the void ratio, where a porous structure has a lower refractive index.
From the teachings of Ioka, Tamura, and Nonaka, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the porosity of the insulating layer so that the film has a refractive index of 1.35 or less because Ioka teaches forming an insulating porous silica, where the porosity is desired for a lower dielectric constant, Tamura indicates that a film similar to Ioka’s is desirable as an insulating film and as a low refractive index film with a refractive index of 1.35 or less, and Nonaka teaches that the refractive index of a film depends on the porosity, where the pores reduce the refractive index such that it will be expected to provide a film having both desirable dielectric constant and refractive index for use as an insulating film or as a low refractive index layer. Therefore, the refractive index will overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Further, since Ioka in view of Tamura and Nonaka provide the process of claim 13 using the same materials (note claims 18 and 19 below), the film is expected to be capable of being optimized to have a refractive index within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
As to the silane treatment, Ioka further teaches treating the surface of the porous silica film with a silylating agent (Col. 6, lines 41-43). They teach that surface treatment of the obtained porous silica thin film with a silylating agent is effective for lowering the hygroscopicity of the film and improving the adhesion of the porous silica thin film to other substances (Col. 16, lines 48-67). They teach that examples of silylating agents include hexamethyldisilazane (Col. 16, line 48 to Col. 17, line 7). They teach that examples of methods for the silylation include application of the silylating agent by coating, immersing in the silylating agents or a solution thereof, exposure to the vapor of the silylating agent, and the like (Col. 17, line 1-7).
They do not teach applying the HMDS by a mist treatment.
Harada teaches a processing solution supplying apparatus, processing apparatus and method, which supply a vapor or mist of a processing solution to a substrate (Col. 1, lines 7-10). They teach an adhesion apparatus 14 that includes a mounting table 20, a heating unit 26 for heating a wafer W in a process chamber 15 (Col. 3, lines 18-29 and Fig. 2). They teach that a processing solution supplying apparatus 30 has a tank 31 which stores the hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) solution (Col. 1, lines 13-19 and Col. 3, lines 30-38 and Fig. 2). They teach that HMDS vapor or mist is supplied along with a transfer gas into the processing chamber 15 through supply pipe 35 (Col. 4, lines 5-11 and Fig. 2). They teach that the HMDS vapor or mist and the transfer gas flow and the predetermined hydrophobic process is applied to a wafer W in the processing chamber (Col. 4, lines 5-11). They teach that after the process, the wafer is transferred to a cooling apparatus (Col. 4, lines 48-52). Therefore, they teach supplying HMDS to a substrate by placing the substrate in a container, generating a vapor or mist including HMDS into the container in which the substrate is placed by using a mist supply device and after the process, removing the substrate from the container so as to be moved to a cooling apparatus.
From the teachings of Harada, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the HMDS coating on the substrate using the mist process of Harada because they teach that such a process successfully applies HMDS to a substrate such that it will be expected to provide the HMDS coating as desired by Ioka. Therefore, in the process of Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada, the substrate will be placed in a container, a mist including HMDS will be generated into the container in which the substrate is placed by using a mist supply device, such that it is expected to fill the container with mist due to spraying of the mist into the container, and then the substrate will be removed from the container. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stopped the mist supply device after a predetermined period of time has elapsed before removing the substrate from the container so as to coat the substrate with the desired amount of material and then to stop misting to end the coating process.
Regarding claim 14, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches an example where the stirring is done for 2 hours at room temperature (Col. 18, lines 39-50), indicating that agitating the mixed solution can be done within the claimed temperature range (where room temperature is understood to be within the claimed range because the claim range is from 59°F to 86°F). Tamura teaches that the heating temperature and heating time for the hydrolysis-condensation reaction can be selected as desired, where they provide an example of heating at 50°C for 24 hours with stirring or heating for 1 hour with stirring under reflex (0060).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the stirring temperature and time to be within the claimed range because Ioka indicates that stirring can be done at room temperature and Tamura indicates that the time and temperature can be selected as desired where heating at 50°C for 24 hours is an example such that it will be expected to provide a suitable time and temperature for completing the desired reaction. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches that the film undergoes hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation at 30 to 150°C for gelation (Col. 14, lines 56-67), is dried at 30 to 250°C and calcined at 300 to 500°C to form a porous film (Col. 15, lines 13-28 and Col. 16, line 1-16). Therefore, the step of forming the porous film will include heating to a temperature range overlapping the claimed range, i.e., 30 to 150°C or 30 to 250°C. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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). According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches that the hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation reaction can be completed within several minutes to several days (Col. 15, lines 1-12). They provide an example of gelling the film for 1 hour at 120°C (Col. 18. Lines 39-50). They also teach calcining the film in the range of 1 minute to 24 hours, where calcining is done to provide pores (Col. 16, lines 16-26). Therefore, the step of forming the porous film will include heating for a time range overlapping the claimed range, i.e., either a range from several minutes to several days or from 1 minute to 24 hours, or a combination thereof. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Regarding claim 18, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches that the silicon compound is selected from the group including tetramethoxysilane (Col. 8, lines 26-54), i.e., tetramethyl orthosilicate.
Regarding claim 19, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches using catalysts selected from the group including triethylamine, i.e., a tertiary amine (Col. 12, lines 51-61).
Tamura also teaches using triethylamine as a catalyst (0060).
Regarding claim 23, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches that the solvent is selected from a group including propylene glycol monomethyl ether (Col. 12, lines 1-40), such that the methoxypropanol is a PGME.
Claim 16 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ishizeki, US 2016/0025899 A1 (provided on the IDS of 11/12/2021).
Regarding claim 16, Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Ioka further teaches that the film undergoes hydrolysis and dehydration-condensation at 30 to 150°C for gelation (Col. 14, lines 56-67), is dried at 30 to 250°C and calcined at 300 to 500°C to form a porous film (Col. 15, lines 13-28 and Col. 16, line 1-16). They teach that the calcining step results in the formation of pores due to the removal of the organic polymer (Col. 15, line 61 to Col. 16, line 16).
They do not teach heating to a temperature in the claimed range during the specific step of forming the pores, i.e., the calcining step.
Ishizeki teaches a substrate with an antireflection layer, which comprises an antireflection layer on at least one surface of the substrate, wherein the antireflection layer contains a silica porous film (abstract). They teach that a coating liquid containing a matrix precursor (A), particles (B) which can be removed from the matrix by heating and a liquid medium (C) is applied to the surface of a substrate and heated to form a silica porous film on the substrate (0105). They teach that the particles may be particles made of a heat decomposable material or a heat sublimable material that has a decomposition temperature from 100 to 800°C (0118). They teach that the decomposable material may be carbon, an organic polymer, or surfactant micelles (0118). They teach applying the coting liquid to the substrate at 10 to 100°C and then heating to convert the matrix precursor to silica and to heat decompose the particles to form pores (0136 and 0138). They teach that heating to evaporate and remove the liquid medium and subsequent heating to form the silica porous film may be carried out continuously while the heat temperature is changed or may be carried out stepwise (0139). They teach that the heat temperature for converting the particles to pores is preferably at least the heat decomposition temperature + 50°C (0140).
From the teachings of Ishizeki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, and Harada to have used organic polymers having a heat decomposable temperature in the range of 100-450°C and to have performed the calcination at a temperature in the range of 150°C to 500°C because Ioka indicates that it is desirable to calcine at a temperature of 500°C or less and Ishizeki teaches that organic polymers having heat decomposable temperatures in the range of 100-800°C can be used to form pores in silica matrix coatings by heating at a range of (the heat decomposition temperature + 50°C) such that it will be expected to provide removal of the organic polymers for forming pores as desired. Therefore, in the process of Ioka in view of Tamura, Nonaka, Harada, and Ishizeki, the step of heating to form the pores in the porous film will be at a temperature in the range of 150-500°C so as to overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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). According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohmura, US 2011/0018108 A1 in view of Ioka, US 6,448,331 B1 and Harada, US 6,202,653 B1.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Kohmura teaches a porous film-manufacturing method (providing a porous material having a low dielectric constant and a low refractive index, 0011 and 0013), comprising:
a step of mixing a solvent that includes a tertiary amine, water, and a methoxypropanol with a silicon compound and preparing a mixed solution (mixing an alkoxysilane compound with an organic solvent, a catalyst and water, 0082, where the solvent includes propylene glycol monomethyl ether, 0129, i.e., a methoxypropanol, and the catalyst includes triethylamine, 0140, i.e., a tertiary amine);
a step of agitating the mixed solution (where the solution is mixed for several minutes to 24 hours, preferably from 0.5 to 7 hours, 0085);
a step of applying the mixed solution after agitation on a substrate and forming a coating film (where the composition that includes the mixed solution is applied onto a support or substrate, 0227, such that it will form a coating film); and
a step of heating the coating film and forming a porous film (where the film is heated to decompose surfactant to form the voids, 0232, such that it will be heated to form the porous film by removing the surfactant),
wherein a refractive index of the porous film is 1.1 to 1.25 (where the refractive index is preferably from 1.25 to 1.18, 0277, so as to be within the claimed range).
Therefore, Kohmura suggests the claimed process to form a film having a refractive index within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Kohmura teaches mixing the solution of the tertiary amine, methoxypropanol, water, and silicon compound, i.e., alkoxysilane compound A at a temperature of 0-100°C or 20-70°C for several minutes to 24 hours, preferably form 0.5 to 7 hours (0082 and 0085). They then add surfactant and concentrate the solution (0087-0088). They teach adding an organic solvent to form a precursor solution, where the organic solvent includes PGME (0091 and 0129). They then add element D to the solution and then a siloxane compound which is hydrolyzed with the precursor solution using a catalyst and water that are contained in the precursor solution (0092 and 0094). They teach that the hydrolysis is again performed at a temperature in the range of 0-100°C or 20-70°C for several minutes to 24 hours or from 0.5 to 7 hours (0098). They add a disilyl compound that can be added with the siloxane (0099). Kohmura teaches including a disilyl compound in the film to assist with hydrophobicity (0102), where the disilyl compound includes hexamethyl disilazane (0224). They teach that the film is a porous silica film (0323 and 0333).
They do not teach that a silane coupling agent treatment is performed on a surface of the porous film.
As discussed above, Ioka provides a porous silica insulating film (abstract). Ioka further teaches treating the surface of the porous silica film with a silylating agent (Col. 6, lines 41-43). They teach that surface treatment of the obtained porous silica thin film with a silylating agent is effective for lowering the hygroscopicity of the film and improving the adhesion of the porous silica thin film to other substances (Col. 16, lines 48-67). They teach that examples of silylating agents include hexamethyldisilazane (Col. 16, line 48 to Col. 17, line 7). They teach that examples of methods for the silylation include application of the silylating agent by coating, immersing in the silylating agents or a solution thereof, exposure to the vapor of the silylating agent, and the like (Col. 17, line 1-7).
From the teachings of Ioka, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kohmura to have applied a hexamethyldisilazane silylating agent to the surface of the porous film because Ioka teaches that such a process lowers the hygroscopicity of a porous silica insulating film and improves the adhesion of the porous silica thin film to other substances such that it will be expected to provide similar benefits to the insulating porous silica film of Kohmura. Therefore, they suggest applying hexamethyldisilazane to the surface so as to provide a silane coupling agent treatment.
They do no teach applying HMDS by a mist treatment.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Harada, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the HMDS coating on the substrate using the mist process of Harada because they teach that such a process successfully applies HMDS to a substrate such that it will be expected to successfully form the HMDS coating as suggested by Ioka. Therefore, in the process of Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada, the substrate will be placed in a container, a mist including HMDS will be generated into the container in which the substrate is placed by using a mist supply device, such that it will be expected to fill the container with HMDS mist due to generating the mist in the container, and then the substrate will be removed from the container. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stopped the mist supply device after a predetermined period of time has elapsed before removing the substrate from the container so as to coat the substrate with the desired amount of material and then to stop misting to end the coating process.
Regarding claim 14, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. As discussed above, Kohmura teaches mixing the solutions at 0-100°C or 20-70°C (0085 and 0098), so as to overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Regarding claim 16, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Kohmura teaches heating preferably from 80-400°C in forming the film (0231). They teach performing a low temperature heat treatment in the range of 80-200°C to remove organic solvent or water (0234). They teach performing a high temperature heat treatment in the range of 400°C or lower and preferably 200°C or higher for removing the surfactant (0232 and 0237). Therefore, in the process of forming the porous film, the film will be heated to a temperature overlapping the claimed range, i.e., for the low temperature heating prior to removing the surfactant. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Regarding claim 18, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Kohmura teaches that the silicon compound is tetramethoxysilane, i.e., a tetramethyl orthosilicate (0117).
Regarding claim 19, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Kohmura teaches that the tertiary amine is a triethylamine (0140).
Regarding claim 23, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. Kohmura teaches that the solvent is propylene glycol monomethyl ether (0129), i.e. a PGME.
Claim 16 is alternatively rejected and claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ishizeki, US 2016/0025899 A1 (provided on the IDS of 11/12/2021).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada suggest the process of claim 13. As discussed above, Kohmura teaches performing a low temperature heat treatment to remove water and solvent and a higher temperature treatment to remove surfactant for forming the pores.
They do not teach heating to a temperature in the claimed range during the specific step of forming the pores, i.e., during removal of the surfactant.
Ishizeki teaches a substrate with an antireflection layer, which comprises an antireflection layer on at least one surface of the substrate, wherein the antireflection layer contains a silica porous film (abstract). They teach that a coating liquid containing a matrix precursor (A), particles (B) which can be removed from the matrix by heating and a liquid medium (C) is applied to the surface of a substrate and heated to form a silica porous film on the substrate (0105). They teach that the particles may be particles made of a heat decomposable material or a heat sublimable material that has a decomposition temperature from 100 to 800°C (0118). They teach that the decomposable material may be carbon, an organic polymer, or surfactant micelles (0118). They teach applying the coating liquid to the substrate at 10 to 100°C and then heating to convert the matrix precursor to silica and to heat decompose the particles to form pores (0136 and 0138). They teach that heating to evaporate and remove the liquid medium and subsequent heating to form the silica porous film may be carried out continuously while the heat temperature is changed or may be carried out stepwise (0139). They teach that the heat temperature for converting the particles to pores is preferably at least the heat decomposition temperature + 50°C (0140). They teach that the heating time is not particularly limited so long as the particles can be converted to pores, and is preferably from 1 to 60 minutes (0140).
From the teachings of Ishizeki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kohmura in view of Ioka and Harada to have used organic polymers having a heat decomposable temperature in the range of 100-450°C and to have performed the calcination at a temperature in the range of 150°C to 500°C for a time of 1-60 minutes because Ishizeki teaches that organic polymers having heat decomposable temperatures in the range of 100-800°C can be used to form pores in silica matrix coatings by heating at a range of (the heat decomposition temperature + 50°C) for a time of 1-60 minutes as an alternative to surfactants such that it will be expected to provide removal of the organic polymers for forming pores as desired as a simple substitution of one known material for another. Therefore, in the process of Kohmura in view of Ioka, Harada, and Ishizeki, the step of heating to form the pores in the porous film will be at a temperature in the range of 150-500°C for a time of 1-60 minutes so as to overlap the ranges of claims 16 and 17. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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). According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendment to claim 13, Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been modified to include the new reference of Harada.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718