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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Both claims depend from cancelled claims claim 8 and 18 respectively. There meets and bounds of the claims can not be determined. Correction required.
For purposes of examination the claims are considered met by the art to the extent definable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandhee (US 2008/0187725) in view of (Sehoon) A-SiN/a-SiN:H Thin film coating polycarbonate glazing applications (2016- cited by applicant), further in view of Kim (KR 2014/0102345)
Grandhee (US 2008/0187725) (cited by applicant) teaches a polycarbonate automobile panel (or window system per claim 22) with multiplayer coating comprising Silicon Oxy Carbide (see claim 9) and SiN (see claims).
forming a multilayer coating (which would encompass a first and second coating that may be formed from Magnetron sputtering or Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) (See claims).
The substrate can be a polycarbonate (See claims).
Regarding claim 20, one of the layers (or substrates) can be a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), a combination of PC/PMMA, polysiloxane, polyurethane, polyurethane acrylate, or any other suitable material (see [0026]).
Grandhee may not teach an Al-Si-N layer.
(Sehoon) A-SiN/a-SiN:H Thin film coating polycarbonate glazing applications (2016- cited by applicant), teaches an Al-Si-N coating for scratch resistance and UV protection of a polycarbonate such as in motor vehicles (See abstract).
The coating uses Magnetron Sputtering to deposit (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide the layer of Al-Si-N coating for scratch resistance and UV protection of a polycarbonate such as in motor vehicles (See abstract).
The above references do not teach a RF plasma.
Kim (KR 2014/0102345) teaches providing an abrasion resistant coating to a polycarbonate substrate using sputtering techniques but first treating the surface with a Radio Frequency (RF) plasma using Argon and N2 gasses to form plasma (See abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide Radio Frequency (RF) plasma using Argon and N2 gasses to form plasma (See abstract) to treat the surface of a polycarbonate substrate for forming a sputtering wear resistant coating.
Applicant has argued that the references do not teach a pretreatment as claimed. Specifically, Kim (KR 2014/0102345) does no teach pre plasma treatment with the claimed gasses. The Examiner disagrees.
Kim (KR 2014/0102345) teaches flooding the deposition chamber with Argon and Nitr9ogen bringing it to pressure and particular gas pressure then forming a plasma BEFORE starting the deposition process. This process is done to form desirable layers with desirable properties (see page 4 translation).
Secondly claim 16 and its dependents are product claims wherein the limitation is a product by process limitation only. Therefore, they do not carry patentable weight in this instance. Secondly, even if the Examiner accepted a processing difference it is not clear that there is a distinct product formed with evidence on the record.
Finally, the Examiner position is that, even if a difference were found, given the above teachings of treatment Before deposition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a period of “pre-treatment” as claimed to optimize pressure and gas composition before deposition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the references do not teach a pretreatment as claimed. Specifically, Kim (KR 2014/0102345) does no teach pre plasma treatment with the claimed gasses. The Examiner disagrees.
Kim (KR 2014/0102345) teaches flooding the deposition chamber with Argon and Nitr9ogen bringing it to pressure and particular gas pressure then forming a plasma BEFORE starting the deposition process. This process is done to form desirable layers with desirable properties (see page 4 translation).
Secondly claim 16 and its dependents are product claims wherein the limitation is a product by process limitation only. Therefore, they do not carry patentable weight in this instance. Secondly, even if the Examiner accepted a processing difference it is not clear that there is a distinct product formed with evidence on the record.
Finally, the Examiner position is that, even if a difference were found, given the above teachings of treatment Before deposition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a period of “pre-treatment” as claimed to optimize pressure and gas composition before deposition.
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 DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights