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
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.
Claim(s) 16, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0272432 to Dodge in view of US 2011/0223401 to Harlin in view of US 2007/0259111 to Singh.
Dodge teaches a method for coating a substrate in rolled form (abstract). The coating is preferably alumina deposited by ALD [0080]. The coating is applied to substantially all surfaces of the substrate in rolled form [0041], wherein the substrate in rolled form is a sheet having a part superposed to another part. The substrate is nonporous [0030]. Dodge does not explicitly teach the surface roughness and does not anticipate a cellulose-based substrate. With respect to surface roughness, a microporous substrate is preferred [0078]. A microporous substate has a surface roughness on the microscale (i.e., >= 0.1 µm). With respect to the cellulose-based substrate, cellulose foam and cellulose nonwoven are disclosed [0078]. The porosity and/or uneven form of the substrate produce a spacing that allows precursor gases to flow through [0007; “through the substrate in rolled form”]. No reference to an intercalation compound.
Dodge does not teach wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of sheets at least partially superposed and the precursors are injected along a direction parallel to the main extension direction of each sheet.
However, Harlin teaches a method for vapor deposition of a paper or board formed from cellulosic material [0040] wherein the substrate is in the form of a sheet or in the form of a package or packaging blank or part of a package [0018]. Harlin teaches the substrate is in the form of packaging [0018] including for food items and non-food items [0006, 0008]. Such packaging is at least inclusive of a packaging tray.
Further, Singh teaches a method for vapor deposition of a plurality of stacked substrates 121 wherein the precursors are injected (via 156) in the spacing between the substrates along a direction parallel to at least one main extension direction of each sheet (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Dodge wherein the substrate takes the form of stacked cellulose/paper substrate (rather than the rolled form). Harlin demonstrates individual paper articles and Singh demonstrates the vapor deposition of those individual articles in batch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 14-15, 18-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 has been amended to require both a closed substrate having a porosity not enabling the gaseous precursors to pass through the substrate and no intercalation compound in the spacing. Previously cited Dodge reference is representative of the closest prior art and only explicitly teaches a porous substrate that allows gaseous precursors to pass through the substrate. Previously cited Singh references teaches spacing the substrate in a traditional wafer boat, but these are known to include spacers between the individual substrates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 16, 23-24. In particular, these claims do not require a closed substrate having a porosity not enabling the gaseous precursors to pass through the substrate. Rather, the opposite is suggested in claim 16. For this reason, the previous rejection is maintained for these claims.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759