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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-20 are pending. Applicant’s previous election of claims 1, 3-9 and N-X as the R2 species, still applies and claims 10, 12-20 remain withdrawn.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/25 has been entered.
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2011/0064932).
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, Takahashi teaches a package structure (gas barrier film) comprising more than one inorganic layer, with at least one of those inorganic layers being the inventive silicon nitride with hydrogen produced via PECVD of silane gas with ammonia (inherently producing the elected organic structural material based on [0050]-[0052] of the present PGPub) and with one or more of the inorganic layers being a different inorganic material (e.g., silicon oxide as in claim 5), and with the overall gas barrier laminate also including organic polymer layers (e.g., epoxy) as in claim 9, and with there optionally being different numbers of inorganic and organic layers, and with the amount of hydrogen in the inventive silicon nitride layer being adjustable depending on the desired degree of gas barrier functionality vs flexibility of that layer, preferably 10-30 atomic percent, and with the thickness of the inorganic layers being adjustable based on the desired degree of gas barrier functionality (see abstract, [0044]-[0049], [0073]-[0075], [0104], [0114]-[0116], [0121]-[0124]).
The amount of hydrogen in the inventive inorganic layer of Takahashi appears to inherently reflect the degree of “organic structural material” in the inventive silicon nitride layer (as compared to just silicon nitride without hydrogen, which is considered a distinct, inorganic material compared to the claimed “organic structural material”). In other words, lower amounts of hydrogen in the silicon nitride layer would correspond to a higher ratio of pure SiN relative to the amount of hydrogen containing silicon nitride. Accordingly, the amount of hydrogen in Takahashi (and the corresponding amount of “organic structural material”) appears to overlap the content of “organic structural material” relative to inorganic material (i.e., pure silicon nitride without hydrogen), as in claim 3.
As an alternative to the ranges overlapping claim 3, Takahashi further teaches that the amount of hydrogen affects barrier properties and flexibility such that the degree of hydrogen (i.e., content of “organic structural material” vs pure inorganic material) in that layer would be obvious to adjust (including to values within the claimed range) as part of the optimization of the degree of barrier properties and flexibility.
Takahashi does not disclose the thickness of the inventive silicon nitride layer as in claim 4 but teaches that this would be obvious to adjust, including to values within the claimed range, as part of the optimization of the degree of gas barrier properties being provided by the layer (citations above).
As explained above, Takahashi teaches that there may be multiple inorganic layers, of which at least one is the inventive silicon nitride layer (corresponding to the claimed organic structural layer) and the others may be other inorganic materials (e.g., silicon oxide) such that there may be two silicon oxide layers and one inventive silicon nitride layer in Takahashi (with the order of these layers in claim 7 being obvious to try based on the finite possible number of ways to order those three layers) or such that there are three silicon oxide layers and two inventive silicon nitride layers (with the order of these layers in claim 8 being obvious to try based on the finite possible number of ways to order those five layers). Takahashi also teaches an organic polymer layer being combined with the above mentioned inorganic layers, such that there may be one organic polymer layer, one inventive silicon nitride layer, and three silicon oxide layers (with the order of the layers in claim 9 being obvious to try based on the finite possible number of ways to order those five layers).
Takahashi does not disclose the thickness of the inorganic layers (e.g., silicon oxide) as in claim 6 but teaches that this would be obvious to adjust, including to values within the claimed range, as part of the optimization of the degree of gas barrier properties being provided by the layer (citations above).
In light of the overlap between the claimed product and that disclosed by Takahashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a product that is both disclosed by Takahashi and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling (CN 107845732, see machine translation) in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2011/0064932).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, Ling teaches a package (gas barrier) structure comprising alternating layers of PECVD inorganic silicon nitride polymer layers and inorganic (e.g., silicon oxide as in claim 5) layers, with both layers having thicknesses overlapping claims 4 and 6, and with the number of layers and alternating layer order rendering obvious claims 7-8 ([0021], [0035]-[0040]). Ling does not disclose the presence of hydrogen in the silicon nitride polymer layer. However, Takahashi is also directed to gas barrier films with multiple different inorganic layers, including silicon nitride layers, and teaches that flexibility may be improved (stress relief being sought in Ling, [0039]) by incorporating hydrogen in the silicon nitride layer at a controlled amount, e.g., 10-30 at%, through PECVD of silane and ammonia (see abstract, [0044]-[0049], [0073]-[0075], [0104], [0114]-[0116], [0121]-[0124]). Thus, it would have been obvious to have incorporated hydrogen in the silicon nitride layers of Ling as taught by Takahashi to improve flexibility. By including hydrogen into the silicon nitride layer of Ling as taught by Takahashi, the resulting structure inherently includes the “organic structural material” as claimed based on [0050]-[0052] of the present PGPub.
The amount of hydrogen in silicon nitride layer appears to inherently reflect the degree of “organic structural material” in the inventive silicon nitride layer (as compared to just silicon nitride without hydrogen, which is considered a distinct, inorganic material compared to the claimed “organic structural material” in the present application). In other words, lower amounts of hydrogen in the silicon nitride layer would correspond to a higher ratio of pure SiN relative to the amount of hydrogen containing silicon nitride. Accordingly, the amount of hydrogen in modified Ling (and the corresponding amount of “organic structural material”) appears to overlap the content of “organic structural material” relative to inorganic material (i.e., pure silicon nitride without hydrogen), as in claim 3.
As an alternative to the ranges overlapping claim 3, Takahashi in modified Ling further teaches that the amount of hydrogen affects barrier properties and flexibility such that the degree of hydrogen (i.e., content of “organic structural material” vs pure inorganic material) in that layer would be obvious to adjust (including to values within the claimed range) as part of the optimization of the degree of barrier properties and flexibility.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling (CN 107845732, see machine translation) in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2011/0064932), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graff et al. (U.S. 2002/0125822).
Regarding claim 9, Ling teaches all of the above subject matter. Ling discloses an overlapping number of alternating silicon nitride polymer layers and silicon oxide layers as in claim 9 and also discloses embodiments in which the silicon nitride layer is combined with organic, e.g., polyacrylic as in claim 9, polymer layers ([0033]) but does not suggest including the organic polymer layer with the alternating inorganic layers discussed above. However, Graff teaches that one or more organic polymer decoupling layers may be included in a gas barrier stack of multiple inorganic gas barrier layers in order to decouple defect between adjacent layers (see abstract, [0027], [0037], [0041]) such that it would have been obvious to have included such a decoupling layer between one or more of the adjacent inorganic layers in modified Ling as taught by Graff in order to decouple defects between the layers. The position of the decoupling layer in the alternating inorganic layers as in claim 9 is obvious to try based on the finite number of possible locations of the decoupling layer in the overall stack of alternating inorganic layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection based on Takahashi as a primary reference is based on speculation without supporting evidence. This is not true. The rejection explains that Takahashi teaches using the same reactants via PECVD to allow for residual hydrogen, as in the present application, which inherently results in the claimed structure (i.e., organic structural layer and inorganic material). Applicant argues that Takahashi does not disclose PECVD but cites the very portions in which Takashi discloses this.
Applicant then argues that Takahashi is directed to an inorganic layer instead of an organic structural material. However, as noted previously, Applicant’s “organic structural material” has an extremely counter-intuitive definition in the present application (see examiner’s note in office action of 09/27/21) and normally would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as an inorganic material (if not for Applicant’s unusual definition) because it does not include carbon atoms. Also, Takahashi does not need to use the same words to describe the material, as long as the material has the same structure as claimed, which is inherent in Takahashi as explained above.
Applicant then argues that the present specification mentions “increasing flow rates of reactive gases” to form the claimed structure. But the specification does not indicate from what basis the flow rates are increased (i.e., increased compared to what specific “conventional” flow rates). Since Takahashi teaches forming hydrogen (as in Applicant’s structure) from the same reactants via PECVD this would result in the same “organic structural material” as claimed (because hydrogen being present prevents the “pure” (i.e., lacking hydrogen) silicon nitride, silicone oxide, and silicon oxynitride that Applicant appears to assert as the “inorganic” material against which the “organic structural material” (which has hydrogen) is distinguished). Furthermore, Takahashi teaches that the flow rate of gasses can be adjusted to control the particular atomic ratios of Si/N/H and there is nothing in the present specification (nor has Applicant provided any evidence or declaration) to indicate that the flow rates disclosed by Takahashi would be outside the presently disclosed “increased flow rates” (because the present specification does not provide any basis to evaluate what is an increased vs conventional flow rate, and there are no examples). If Applicant intends to distinguish the present invention from Takahashi based on Takahashi failing to disclose “increased flow rates” then Applicant would have to provide evidence or a declaration (based on evidence) to support such an argument. It is maintained that the claimed structure is inherently disclosed by Takahashi because Takahashi teaches the same reactants, applied via the same process (PECVD) to produce a material that, as in the present disclosure, is not purely inorganic (i.e., not only made up of Si and N) because it explicitly includes hydrogen (like in the “organic structural material” of the present application).
Applicant then argues that Takahashi’s hydrogen “may” be the result of incomplete ionization of the starting materials. However, this is mere attorney arguments and is not supported by evidence or a declaration by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, the fact that Takahashi indicates that the hydrogen is present in the final deposited material indicates that the hydrogen is not merely present in the reactive gasses that fail to deposit onto the substrate (which seems to be Applicant’s argument).
Applicant then argues that Ling fails to disclose hydrogen in the depicted structure, but this is improper piecemeal analysis.
Applicant then argues that Ling fails to disclose silicone nitride/oxide/oxynitride and instead teaches polysilicon nitride/oxide/oxynitride, however, the latter is within the genus of the former.
Applicant then argues that the references fail to recognize certain benefits related to the claimed structure. However, this would only be relevant as an unexpected results argument which cannot be persuasive because Applicant has no data (examples and comparative examples) to support such an argument.
Conclusion
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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.
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787