DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 14-15, 27-30, 32-34 and 37-39 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 01/07/2026.
Applicant filed a response on 04/28/2026.
Claim(s) 14-30, 32-34 and 37-39 are pending, and claim(s) 16-26 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 14-15, 27-30, 32-34 and 37-39 are rejected.
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 .
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.
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 14-15, 27-30, 32-34 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji, JP 2016022589A (Shoji).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Shoji, JP 2016022589A (Shoji). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 14-15, 27-30 and 37-38, Shoji teaches an inorganic barrier layer (Shoji, Abstract); the inorganic barrier layer containing 5 to 40 atomic percent of silicon atoms (Shoji, page 4, 1st paragraph); specific examples of suitable inorganic compounds include composites such as silicon oxide (Shoji, page 4, 3rd paragraph).
Given that Shoji discloses the inorganic barrier layer that overlaps the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including silicon oxide as the inorganic compound for the inorganic barrier layer, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the inorganic barrier layer (reading upon a silicon oxide film), which is both disclosed by Shoji and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Shoji further teaches thickness per layer of the inorganic barrier layer is preferably 20 to 3000 nm, more preferably 50 to 2500 nm, and particularly preferably 30 to 1000 nm (Shoji, page 4, 5th paragraph), which encompasses or overlaps the range of the presently claimed;
the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) is preferably 0.1 g /m2·day or less. A water vapor transmission rate of 0.1 g/m2·day or less is preferable because the formation process becomes uniform in the formation of the amorphous phase in the upper layer of the inorganic barrier layer, and the barrier performance of the gas barrier film is further improved; the lower limit is not particularly limited and is preferably as small as possible; furthermore, the water vapor transmission rate of the inorganic barrier layer is more preferably 0.01 g /m2·day or less (Shoji, page 4, 6th paragraph; page 5, 1st paragraph), which encompasses the ranges of the presently claimed.
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).
Shoji further teaches the atomic ratio of the carbon atom content to the total amount of silicon atoms, oxygen atoms, and carbon atoms in the inorganic barrier layer is preferably 0.5 to 25 at% (i.e., atom%), and preferably 1 to 20 at% (i.e., atom%) (Shoji, page 11, 1st paragraph). Given that Shoji teaches that the inorganic barrier layer contains additional metal component in addition to silicon (Shoji, page 4, 3rd paragraph), the carbon atom content based on a total composition of the inorganic barrier layer would be below 0.5 to 25 at% (i.e., atom%), or preferably below 1 to 20 at% (i.e., atom%), which overlaps or encompasses the ranges of the presently claimed.
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).
Further regarding claims 14 and 37-38, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Shoji meets the requirements of the claimed product, Shoji clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 32, as applied to claim 14, Shoji further teaches it is preferable not to make the ratio of the reaction gas excessive rather than the ratio of the amount; by not making the ratio of the reaction gas excessive, the formed inorganic barrier layer is excellent in that excellent gas barrier properties and bending resistance can be obtained. Further, when the film forming gas contains the organosilicon compound and oxygen, the amount is less than the theoretical oxygen amount necessary for complete oxidation of the entire amount of the organosilicon compound in the film forming gas (Shoji, page 14, bottom pragraph).
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of a ratio of a volumetric flow rate of oxygen supplied to a volumetric flow rate of the organosilane compound as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of a ratio of a volumetric flow rate of oxygen supplied to a volumetric flow rate of the organosilane compound, based on the type of organosilane used, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve excellent gas barrier properties and bending resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Alternatively, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Shoji meets the requirements of the claimed product, Shoji clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claims 33-34, as applied to claim14, although Shoji does not explicitly teach wherein the plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method is under a condition in which a power of a radio frequency power supply (RF power supply) is at least 100 W; or wherein the plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method is under a condition in which a power density of a radio frequency power supply (RF power supply) is at least 0.1 W/cm2, as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Shoji meets the requirements of the claimed product, Shoji clearly meets the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claim 39, as applied to claim 14, given that Shoji teaches an identical or substantially identical silicon oxide film with water vapor transmission rate and carbon concentration in the silicon oxide film that overlaps or encompasses the ranges of the presently claimed, and prepared with an identical or substantially identical method (i.e., plasma chemical vapor deposition using a silane), as presently claimed, it is therefore clear that the silicon oxide film of the presently claimed would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitation that the silicon oxide film characterized in that when laminated on a substrate selected from polyethylene naphthalate and polyethylene terephthalate, the laminated film has a visible light transmittance of at least 80%.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the record is insufficient to establish that the claimed invention is prima facie obvious over Shoji. The claimed invention requires (i) a WVTR at a film thickness of at most 500 nm of at most 9.0x10-4 g/m2-day, (ii) a low carbon atom content of at most 1.5 atom%; and (iii) produced by film-depositing a recited material of formula (1). Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art following Shoji would not have had reason to prepare a silicon oxide film with the recited WVTR property at a low carbon atom content of at most 1.5 atom% using a recited organosilane with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Office improperly relies on the overlapping range doctrine for at least the element of WVTR. In particular, the Office argues that the recited WVTR value is encompassed by Shoji's preferred value of 0.1 g /m2- day or less. However, the Office has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a film with the recited WVTR characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success, much less by specifically selecting a low carbon atom content and using an organosilane of formula (1).
…
In this case, Shoji's alleged teaching that "the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) is preferably 0.1 g /m2-day or less" is no different from Pallas' teaching of an ideal cloud point of "above 60 °C". Following Stepan, the Office still should articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art following Shoji would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the recited WVTR property. Applicant submits that Shoji's teaching does not support such a finding. Specifically, Shoji's examples show WVTR values in the range of 0.01 to 0.15 g/m2. day, which is at least one order of magnitude difference. Further, Shoji does not teach or suggest how to lower the WVTR by at least one order of magnitude. Shoji certainly does not teach or suggest reducing the carbon content to a low carbon atom content of at most 1.5 atom% and using an organosilane of formula (1) could achieve a lower WVTR.”
Remarks, p. 2-3
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, Shoji teaches a silicon oxide film, with overlapping ranges, including the water vapor transmission and carbon concentration, as set forth on pages 3-5 of Office Action mailed 01/07/2026. 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), absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, while Shoji’s examples show WVTR values in the range of 0.01 to 0.15 g/m2.day, Shoji broadly discloses the water vapor transmission rate is preferably 0.1g/(m2.day) or less, and more preferably, 0.01g/(m2/day) or less (Shoji, paragraph spanning between pages 4-5).
“applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright,
377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Thirdly, Shoji’s specific disclosure of 0.01g/m2.day is in close proximity of the claimed range of 9.0*10-3 g/m2.day, i.e., 0.01g/m2.day is only 10% high than 9.0*10-3 g/m2.day.
Therefore, it remains the examiner’s position that given Shoji teaches ranges overlapping those of the presently claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Applicant further argues:
“Specifically, Shoji would not have directed a person of ordinary skill in the art to a low carbon content when preparing a silicon oxide film, much less with a reasonable expectation that such low carbon content could result in a low WVTR. Shoji generally teaches a carbon content in the inorganic barrier layer of 0.5 to 25 atom%, preferably 1 to 20 atom%. Shoji, paragraph [0066]. As explained by Dr. CHIBA, Shoji's approach "relies on incomplete oxidation and thus allows a relatively high level of carbon to be retained in the film". Declaration, 24. It should be noted that the working examples of Shoji indicate that when the film thickness is approximately 300 nm, the WVTR ranges from 0.01 to 0.15 g/m2- day, corresponding at best to the 10-2 order of magnitude. In other words, the working examples of Shoji are at least one order of magnitude higher in terms of WVTR. A person of ordinary skill in the art following Shoji would not have had reason to specifically reduce the carbon content, let alone with a reasonable expectation that the resulting film could have the recited WVTR.”
Remarks, p. 4
Affidavit, items 13-24
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the fact remains that Shoji teaches a carbon content of 0.5 to 25 at%, and preferably 1 to 20 at%, which overlap the ranges of the presently claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon content of Shoji can be any value within the taught range, including 0.5 to 1.5 at%, which is within the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, while Shoji’s examples show WVTR values in the range of 0.01 to 0.15 g/m2.day, Shoji broadly discloses the water vapor transmission rate is preferably 0.1g/(m2.day) or less, and more preferably, 0.01g/(m2/day) or less (Shoji, paragraph spanning between pages 4-5).
“applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright,
377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Thirdly, Shoji’s specific disclosure of 0.01g/m2.day is in close proximity of the claimed range of 9.0*10-3 g/m2.day, i.e., 0.01g/m2.day is only 10% high than 9.0*10-3 g/m2.day.
Applicant further argues:
“Further, Dr. CHIBA explains that the carbon atom content of at most 1.5 atom% is a critical range, though not the only factor, for achieving a low WVTR. As shown in Figure 1 of the Declaration, "when the carbon concentration exceeds approximately 3 atom%, theWVTR rapidly increases to levels on the order of 10-2 g/(m2-day) or higher". Declaration 17. Dr. CHIBA explains that reducing the carbon content to a low level is "a necessary condition for achieving a high-barrier region." Id. at 18. Shoji does not teach or suggest specifically preparing a silicon oxide film with carbon content in this low range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also not expect any advantages associated with the lower level of carbon content, much less to arrive at a film with the recited low WVTR.”
Remarks, p. 4
Affidavit, items 17-18
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the fact remains that Shoji teaches a carbon content of 0.5 to 25 at%, and preferably 1 to 20 at%, which overlap the ranges of the presently claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the carbon content of Shoji can be any value within the taught range, including 0.5 to 1.5 at%, which is within the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
Second, the data to show advantageous effects by the claimed carbon concentration in the present invention is not persuasive for the following reasons.
The data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. The data only provides examples of silicon oxide films with specific carbon concentrations less than 1 atom% and prepared with specific silanes; while the present claim broadly recites silicon oxide film with any water vapor transmission rate at a film thickness of at most 500 nm is at most 9.0*10-3 g/m2·g, (2) a carbon concentration in the silicon oxide film, as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), is at most 1.5 atom%; and wherein the silicon oxide film is produced by film-depositing a material for a gas barrier film and the material is any organosilane compound of formula (1).
Further, the data does not show using the upper- and lower-ends of water vapor transmission rate at a film thickness of at most 500 nm is at most 9.0*10-3 g/m2·g, (2) a carbon concentration in the silicon oxide film, as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), is at most 1.5 atom%. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of of water vapor transmission rate at a film thickness of at most 500 nm is at most 9.0*10-3 g/m2·g, (2) a carbon concentration in the silicon oxide film, as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), is at most 1.5 atom%.
Secondly, the data does not provide proper side-by-side comparison. The closest comparison is Example 1 and Comparative Example 1. However, Example 6 does not disclose the carbon content of the film. Furthermore, Example 6 also uses a different deposition chamber pressure from Example 1, therefore, it is unclear what contributes to the difference between Example 1 and Comparative Example.
Applicant further argues:
“In addition, Dr. CHIBA explains that the silanes and processes used for preparing the silicon oxide film can have a significant impact on the structural state of the film, as it can influence "the presence or absence of film cracking and voids, as well as, how well a dense film structure is formed." Declaration, 18. Dr. CHIBA details the mechanism of why the presence of non-crosslinked structure Si-H or Si-Me etc. would create such voids that allow gas leakage. Id. at 1 19-23. In Shoji's film, the carbon derived from the organosilanes are intentionally left to remain in the film, which causes "a significant amount of carbon-related structural units and is closer to a network containing organic components, rather than a dense Si-O-Si network." Id. at24. On the other hand, in the claimed invention, by "limiting the carbon concentration to 1.5atom% or less, an unfavorable high-carbon structural regime is excluded, thereby enabling the realization of a high-barrier structure." Id. at 23.”
Remarks, p. 4-5
Affidavit, items 18
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, absent evidence i.e., data, to support that there are structural differences between the silicon oxide films between Shoji and the presently claimed, given that Shoji teaches a silicon oxide film teaches the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including overlapping water vapor transmission rate and carbon concentration, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shoji meets the presently claimed silicon oxide film.
Secondly, the comparison between Examples 1, 5-6 and comparative Example 1 do not provide a proper side-by-side comparison. Comparative Example 1 differ from Examples 1, 5-6 not only in the type of silane used, but also in the deposition chamber pressure. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is the type of silane used, or it is the different deposition chamber pressure, that results in the different performance in water vapor transmission rate of the obtained silicon dioxide film.
Applicant further argues:
“Dr. CHIBA's declaration also supports that the organosilanes recited in claim 14 are expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics, which the Examiner should have considered. As shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of the Declaration, the organosilane structures have an impact on whether Si-Me or Si-H voids are generated, which as explained, are specifically linked to WVTR. In Figure 2-2, it was shown that when HMDSO was used, a significant number of Si-Me groups can be observed by IR, which has a large WVTR value of 7.4 x 10-1 g/(m2- day). Declaration, 1 19-20. Note that HMDSO is the specific silane used in Shoji and Comparative Example 1 of this application. Applicant respectfully submits that when the claimed element of organosilanes is considered, the Office should conclude that the claimed invention is nonobvious over Shoji. As explained in Applicant's previous reply, Shoji does not teach or suggest that WVTR values of films have a correlation with the organosilanes used in the process of making. Without showing a correlation, Shoji cannot be reasonably considered as teaching or suggesting the change of the organosilanes in Shoji specifically to those recited in the claims of this application.”
Remarks, p. 5
Affidavit, items 19-20, Figure 2-2
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the comparison between Examples 1, 5-6 and comparative Example 1 do not provide a proper side-by-side comparison. Comparative Example 1 differ from Examples 1, 5-6 not only in the type of silane used, but also in the deposition chamber pressure. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is the type of silane used, or it is the different deposition chamber pressure, that results in the different performance in water vapor transmission rate of the obtained silicon dioxide film.
Secondly, there is no evidence, i.e., proper side-by-side comparison to show that the silicon oxide films of Figure 2-2, that different structure and water vapor transmission rates are resulted from the usage of different silane.
Secondly, given that Shoji teaches a silicon oxide film teaches the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including overlapping water vapor transmission rate and carbon concentration, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shoji meets the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including the underlying structure features required to achieve the water vapor transmission rate.
Applicant further argues:
“Lastly, the Declaration also provides objective evidence of failure of others and industrial praise, which further supports the nonobviousness of the claimed invention. For example, Dr. CHIBA explains that the claimed low WVTR thin-film structure is difficult to achieve technically and others have failed to achieve the claimed thin-film structure. Declaration, 1 27- 29.”
Remarks, p. 6
Affidavit, items 30-35
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the Internation award and publication of peer-review paper do not provide evidence or proof that the claimed silicon oxide film, including the claimed water vapor transmission rate and carbon centration cannot or have not been achieved.
Secondly, the fact remains that Shoji teaches a silicon oxide film teaches the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including overlapping water vapor transmission rate and carbon concentration, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shoji meets the presently claimed silicon oxide film.
Applicant further argues:
“III. Technical Difficulty in Simultaneously Achieving Low WVTR, Thin Film Structure, and High Productivity
26. I further declare that prior to the present application, it had been difficult in the art to simultaneously achieve low WVTR, thin film structure, and high productivity, as evidenced by both the general state of the prior art and the teachings of Shoji, which reflect a persistent technical trade-off among these requirements.”
Affidavit, items 26-29
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, the present claim is drawn to a product claim, not to a process claim with specific productivity. Therefore, it is not required for prior art to meet any productivity when the silicon oxide film is prepared.
Secondly, the fact remains that Shoji teaches a silicon oxide film teaches the presently claimed silicon oxide film, including overlapping water vapor transmission rate and carbon concentration, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shoji meets the presently claimed silicon oxide film.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights