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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-14 and 16-18 of M. M. Sung, et al., US 17/626,323 (01/11/2022) are pending. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13 and 18 are withdrawn as directed to unelected Groups; claims 14 and 16-17 under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group III (Now claims 14, 16-17), with traverse, in the reply filed on 11/05/2024. Applicant canceled claims 2-3 and 15 in the reply filed on 02/24/2025. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13 and 18 drawn to non-elected Group (I)-(II) are maintained as withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The Restriction requirement is maintained as FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of Effect of the Preamble in Claim 14
The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. MPEP 2111.02.II.
Herein, the claim 14 preamble of:
“that is included in a gas barrier formed on a substrate including an organic electronic optical device layer thereon”
does NOT add any structural limitations to the claimed organic-inorganic hybrid layer, therefore, this preamble language is merely interpreted as a purpose or intended use of the claimed organic-inorganic hybrid layer and not applied to prior arts. Here, claim 14 is clearly directed to “An organic-inorganic hybrid layer”. The claim 14 recitation “that is included in a gas barrier formed on a substrate including an organic electronic optical device layer thereon” is more reasonably interpreted as a suggested use for the claimed “organic-inorganic hybrid layer”.
Interpretation of the Claim 14 “organic-inorganic hybrid layer” Structure
The independent claim 14 directed to an organic-inorganic hybrid layer formed on a substrate including an organic electronic device thereon, the organic-inorganic hybrid layer comprising:
claim 14 . . . at least one unit layer including a first metal atomic layer and an organic molecular layer on the first metal atomic layer represented by Formula 1 or 2 below:
[Formula 1] (-XaRa) (Xb1Rb) C (RcXc-) (RdXd-)
[Formula 2] (-XaRa) (-Xb2Rb) C (RcXc-) (RdXd-)
In Formula 1 or Formula 2, a plurality of - means a bond, and Xa and Xb2 are oxygen, Xc and Xd are sulfur, Xb1 is hydrogen, and
Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are, irrespective of each other, a bond or a C1 to C3 alkylene group, the total number of carbons constituting Ra, Rb, Rc, and Ra is 1 to 9,
Xa and Xb2 binds to a metal in the first metal atomic layer, and Xc and Xd binds to a metal in a second metal atomic layer on the organic molecular layer, and
the first metal atomic layer and the second metal atomic layer are zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), indium (In), cadmium (Cd), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), tungsten (W), or silicon (Si) layer.
It is first noted that the claim 14 terms “comprising” and “including” are interpreted as open-ended; that is, additional, unrecited structure and/or elements are not excluded by the claim. MPEP § 2111.03(I).
With reference to specification Fig. 1, the structure of [Formula 1] and [Formula 2] are interpreted based on the plain language as a tetravalent carbon atom as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The overall structure of claim 14 “organic-inorganic hybrid layer” is better understood by referencing the single working Example at pages 19-20 and specification Fig. 4. Below, the Examiner has mapped the claim 14 elements to the specification working example (with reference to specification Fig. 4) as an aid to interpreting the claim 14 structural elements.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to the claim term of “layer”, the specification recites “layer” many times but does not specifically define the boundaries of this term in the claimed structural context. See e.g., specification at page 7 (“[i]n the drawings, when it is said that a layer is "on" another layer or substrate, it may be formed directly on the other layer or substrate, or a third layer may be interposed therebetween”). The specification indicates that the term “layer” does not require a substrate. Specification at page 8 (“[r]eferring to FIG. 1, a substrate 10 may be provided”). Referring to the embodiments of specification Fig. 1, the layers are depicted as planes of atoms or chemical groups some of which are chemically bonded to each other (e.g., 30_1) while in other planes (e.g., OL) there is no inter-atom bonding between the groups in the plane. Accordingly, based on its plain meaning, the term “layer” is broadly and reasonably interpreted consistently with the specification as at least one claimed atom or chemical group substantially or roughly spatially oriented (but not necessarily chemically bonded) in the same plane as another (claimed or unclaimed) atom or chemical group. Essentially, as so interpreted, a layer requires only one atom or chemical group. Further, a “layer” may itself comprise multiple layers, for example, layer LM of Fig. 1.
New Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Relative Term
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the instant claim 14 recites:
wherein the organic molecular layer includes a plurality of regularly arranged organic molecules
The term “regularly arranged organic molecules ” in the instant claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regularly arranged organic molecules” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention that is one ordinary skill in the art does not know what kind of position of an organic molecule is the claimed “regularly arranged”.
Maintained 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.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D.M. Piper, et al., 26, Advanced Materials 1596-1601 (2014) (“Piper”) in view of M. M. Sung, et al, US20160276241A1 (2016)(“Sung”) and M. Ahlf, et al, WO2015188992A1 (2015)(“Ahlf”).
Note: The 103 rejection is minor modified according to claim amendment.
D.M. Piper, et al., 26, Advanced Materials 1596-1601 (2014) (“Piper”)
Piper disclose polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) as below:
In this work, AlGL was deposited conformally onto Si anodes using the sequential, self-limiting reaction of trimethylaluminum (Al(CH3)3) and glycerol (C3H5(OH)3) according to:
A. Reaction A: R–OH* + Al(CH3)3 → R–O–Al(CH3)2 * + CH4
B. Reaction B: R–O–Al(CH3)* + C3H5(OH)3→ R–O–Al–OC3H5(OH)2 * + CH4
where asterisks indicate surface species and R represents the underlying Si electrode. The resulting poly(aluminum glycerol) is also referred to as alucone, and is part of a broader new class of materials referred to as metalcones. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the controlled layered chemistry structure of the AlGL used in this work.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Piper at page 1597, left col., Paragraph 2, line 1 to right col. line 2; and Figure 1.
Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) such as A is an organic-inorganic hybrid layer comprising an metal atom layer which is an Al layer; and an organic molecular layer from glycerol. Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol A has a structure as indicated below, which comprises:
(i). a first metal aromatic layer,
(ii). an organic molecular layer on the first metal atomic layer;
(iii). a second metal atomic layer on the organic molecular layer; and
(iv). both the first metal atomic layer and the second metal atomic layer are aluminum (Al) layer.
PNG
media_image4.png
905
1875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Piper teaches that:
Due to the presence of more than two hydroxyl groups per glycerol molecule, sequential reactions between (Al(CH3)3 ) and (C3H5(OH)3 ) produce a high degree of cross linking between the polymer chains.
Piper at 1597, right col. paragraph 1, line 4-7, emphasis added.
Therefore, the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol also includes a plurality of regularly arranged organic molecules.
Piper also teaches that:
By coating nano-Si composite anode electrodes with polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) via MLD1, we show that it is possible to cycle nano-Si composite electrodes for over 100 cycles with capacities of nearly 900 mA h g −1 and CEs in excess of 99%.
Piper at 1597, left col. paragraph 1, line 10-13, emphasis added.
Difference between Piper and the Claim 14
The Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol differs from the [Formula I] of claim 14 only in that the organic molecular layer glycerol does not comprise two S atoms at claim 14 variables Xc and Xd of Formula 1 as indicated below.
PNG
media_image5.png
923
1188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
M. M. Sung, et al, US20160276241A1 (2016)(“Sung”)
Sung teaches that:
The molecular layer deposition technology represents gas phase deposition in which inorganic or organic molecules can be controlled in a molecular unit based on the self-controlled surface reaction of inorganic or organic molecules. The S. M. George group as a representative example used the molecular layer deposition technology to prepare the alucone polymer film with trimethyl aluminium (I MA) and ethylene glycol (EG). However, in such existing molecular layer deposition, the functional group including an organic precursor has been restricted to a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group and their derivatives and the organic-inorganic hybrid thin film prepared accordingly has a problem such that it becomes unstable and decomposed upon standing in the air.
Sung at page 1, [0006], emphasis added.
Sun teaches that:
The present invention has as its objective to solve the problems with the prior art above and to provide a method for preparing a new organic-inorganic hybrid thin film in which a precursor compound used for forming an inorganic layer and a precursor compound used for forming an organic layer are alternately used.
Sung at page 1, [0009].
Sung teaches organic-inorganic hybrid thin film expressed by the formula 1 prepared according to the preparation method, and the organic-inorganic hybrid thin film can overcome the problems mentioned above.
- [M- X- R1-Y-]m- [Formula 1]
Wherein, X or Y is selected from a group consisting of O , S, N, NH and CO, and either X or Y is S. Sung at page 1, [0011]-[0015], emphasis added.
Sung fairly teaches one ordinary skill that organic-inorganic hybrid thin film made through organic molecular comprising S atom is stable to air.
Sung also teaches working examples, such as Examples 3 and 4:
Example 3
[0077] After an Si (100) substrate was washed with distilled water and acetone, it was purged with N2 gas 2-3 times to remove any contaminants on the substrate surface before trimethyl aluminium (IMA) was used as a first precursor compound to deposit a trimethyl aluminium (IMA) thin film over the Si substrate according to the molecular layer deposition method.
[0078] Over the trimethyl aluminium (IMA) thin film was formed an organic molecular film by using 4-mercapto phenol as a second precursor compound according to the molecular layer deposition method to prepare an organic-inorganic hybrid thin film.
[0079] Argon was used for both carrier gas and purging gas, and DEZn and 4-mercapto phenol were respectively evaporated at 20° C. and 70° C. One cycle was achieved by exposure to DEZn for 2 seconds, purging with Ar for 10 seconds, exposure to 4-mercapto phenol for 2 seconds and purging with Ar for 50 seconds. The thin film was grown at the temperature of 80° C. to 200° C. and under a pressure of 300 mTorr.
Sung at Page 5, Example 3.
Example 4
[0089] As in Example 3 above, trimethyl aluminium (IMA) was used as the first precursor compound to deposit a thin film over an Si substrate and 4-mercapto phenol was used as the second precursor compound to form an organic-inorganic hybrid thin film over the trimethyl aluminium (IMA) thin film according to the molecular layer deposition method before the process of forming the trimethyl aluminium (I MA) thin film by the first precursor compound, and while the thin film based on the second precursor compound was repeatedly formed, thicknesses of the thin film were measured and the results are shown in FIG. 13.
[0090] It may be verified in FIG. 13 that the number of repetitions for the process of forming the thin film by the first precursor compound and forming the thin film by the second precursor compound is proportional to the thickness of the thin film formed.
Sung at page 5, Example 4, emphasis added.
It should be noted that the Sung Example 4 organic-inorganic hybrid thin film has the same the first metallic layer and the second metallic layer as those of the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL); and they all prepared via MLD method.
Per the stability tests in air, Sung teaches that the organic-inorganic hybrid multi-layered film including an S group is very stable in air. Sung at page 4, [0073] and page 5, [0088].
M. Ahlf, et al, WO2015188992A1 (2015)(“Ahlf”)
Ahlf cited here to provide additional supporting for the motivation to modify Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol.
Ahlf teaches that electronic devices need efficient encapsulation and passivation due to their high sensitivity to moisture and oxygen. Ahlf at page 1, line 7.
Ahlf teaches that laminate comprising more than once the sequence comprising:
(a) an inorganic layer, and
(b) a sulfur-comprising organic layer,
has high water and oxygen barrier properties.
Ahlf at page 1, lines 22-40, emphasis added.
Ahlf teaches that:
A cycle in an ALD process to form an organic layer typically comprises bringing a sulfur-containing compound into the gaseous state and depositing it from the gaseous state onto a substrate. The sulfur in the sulfur-containing compound is preferably in the oxidation state -2, -1 or 0, which is minus two, minus one or zero, e.g. an organic thiol, an organic thioether, or an organic dithioether. An organic thiol is preferred. The sulfur-containing compound can contain one or more than one sulfur atoms. Preferably, the sulfur-containing compound contains one sulfur atom. More preferably, the sulfur-containing compound is an aromatic thiol. The thiol can be directly bond to the aromatic part of the molecule or via a linker such as a methylene group, preferably it is directly bond to the aromatic group. The sulfur-containing compound is even more preferably a thiophenol derivative. Preferably, the sulfur-containing molecule further contains one or more hydroxyl groups.
Ahlf at page 4, lines 13-23, emphasis added.
Ahlf further teaches that preferably, the sulfur-containing compound contains at least two sulfur atoms, more preferably two sulfur atoms. Ahlf at page 5, lines 7-8, emphasis added.
Thus, Ahlf fairly teaches one ordinary skilled artisan that organic-inorganic hybrid layer made from a compound comprising two thiol groups and one or more hydroxyl groups has high water and oxygen barrier properties (stable in air).
Claims 14 and 16-17 are Obvious
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention based on the teachings from Piper, Sung and Ahlf with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to modify the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) through replacing the second precursor glycerol with 2,3-dimercaptopropan-1-ol, thus arrive at an organic-inorganic hybrid multi-layer meeting each and every limitation of claims 14 and 16-17, therefore, claims 14 and 16-17 are obvious. It should be noted that the proposed method is substantially the same method as that is disclosed in the specification Preparation Example 1, therefore, the produced layer is the same2.
One ordinary skill is motivated to do so and with a reasonable expectation of success because:
(i). the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) is made from glycerol comprising hydroxy functional groups;
(ii) Sung teaches that organic-inorganic hybrid layer prepared with organic precursor having hydroxy group as the functional is unstable and decomposed upon standing in the air; and compound comprising -SH can be used as organic precursor to prepare organic-inorganic hybrid layer through MLD, and the prepared organic-inorganic hybrid layer is very stable in air;
(ii). Ahlf teaches that organic-inorganic hybrid layer made from a compound comprising a compound comprising two thiol groups and one or more hydroxyl groups is very stable in air(has high water and oxygen barrier properties).
The rational supporting the election of 2,3-dimercaptopropan-1-ol is supported by the “obvious to try” given glycerol only has three hydroxy groups can be modified. MPEP 2143.I.E.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant first argues on the ground that one ordinary skill is not motivated to modify the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol (AlGL) through replacing glycerol with 2,3-dimercaptopropan-1-ol because Piper teaches that “Due to the presence of more than two hydroxyl groups per glycerol molecule, sequential reactions between (Al(CH3)3) and (C3H5(OH)3) produce a high degree of crosslinking between the polymer chains, which strengthens the alucone films and lead to higher fracture toughness”. Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at page 7 to paragraph 2 of page 9.
This argument has been fully considered but not persuasive because per the teachings from Ahlf and Sung, one ordinary skill would be appraised that the HS group(s) in 2,3-dimercaptopropan-1-ol also can react with Al(CH3)3 to form a S-Al bond(s), therefore, the replacement has NO significant changes on the degree of crosslinking between the polymer chains. Thus, replacing glycerol with 2,3-dimercaptopropan-1-ol would increase the stability and has NO significant effect on the toughness of the proposed alucone films because the replacement has NO significantly changes on the degree of crosslinking between the polymer chains, therefore, one ordinary skill has a motivation to conduct the modification as proposed.
Applicant argues on the ground that Piper has a different application from Sung or Ahlf. Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at paragraph 3 of page 9. This argument is not persuasive because the stability of a film does not change with the type of applications.
Applicant further argues on the ground that the Piper film is not “a simple linear connection to provide higher fracture toughness to the alucone film”. Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at paragraph 4-5 of page 9. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant argues something not claimed. Further as mentioned in the 103 rejection above that the Piper’s polymeric aluminum glycerol is formed through sequential reactions between (Al(CH3)3 ) and (C3H5(OH)3 ), therefore, it includes a plurality of regularly arranged organic molecules as claimed.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding Unexpected Results
Applicant argues that the claimed organic-inorganic hybrid layer exhibits the following superior and unexpected effects that are not predictable from the cited references, which further supports patentability. Remarks filed on 12/15/2025 at paragraph 4 of page 10 to page 12.
Relevant Sections of the MPEP
A greater than expected result and evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties are evidentiary factors pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness of the claims at issue. MPEP § 716.02(a)(I)/(II). However, the burden is on Applicant to establish that the evidence relied upon demonstrates that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(b). Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. MPEP § 716.02(b)(III).
Furthermore, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support; that is, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d). The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. MPEP § 716.02(d)(I).
Further, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 also must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 716.02(e).
The Results Proffered in the Specification
The specification discloses the proffered comparative results in Figures 8-9 as indicated below:
PNG
media_image7.png
827
1272
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
768
702
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Proffered Results Do Not Overcome the § 103 Rejection Because Applicant Has Not Met Its Burden of Demonstrating that the Proffered Result Is Unexpected
The above Fig. 8-9 indicate that the Ca Oxidation in the films of Al-4MP/Al2O3 is the same as those in the film of Al-DMP/Al2O3 in the first 120 hours (0/144); the Ca Oxidation in the films of Al-4MP/Al2O3 at 360 hours is 1/144-3/144, those in the film of Al-DMP/Al2O3 is 0/144; the Ca Oxidation in the films of Al-4MP/Al2O3 at 720 hours is 2/144-6/144, those in the film of Al-DMP/Al2O3 is 1/144-3/144.
Applicant has provided NO explanation of why the difference is unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(b). Applicant has therefore not met its burden. MPEP § 716.02(b). The burden is on Applicant to establish that the evidence relied upon demonstrates that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(b).
The Proffered Results Do Not Overcome the § 103 Rejection Because the Proffered Results are Not Commensurate in Scope with the Claims
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support; that is, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d). Herein, the only one species (DMP) of the claimed Formula 1/2 is clearly not commensurate in scope with the large genera of Formula 1 or 2 claimed by the claim 1.
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 FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 Molecular layer deposition, see Piper at 1596, right col. paragraph 4, line 2-3.
2 This is a procedural burden shifting. The requirement that the prior art necessarily teaches the alleged inherent (functional) element still remains. MPEP § 2112(IV). However, the burden is shifted to Applicant to demonstrate the alleged inherent element is not necessarily present in the cited prior art. Stated differently, when the examiner "has reason to believe" that the prior art reference inherently teaches the limitation, the burden shifts to the patent applicant to show that the limitation cannot be met by the prior art reference. MPEP 2112(V), see also, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Chudik, 674 F. App'x 1011, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (both citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 58 C.C.P.A. 1027 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).