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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/30/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/22/24.
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) 12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6426127 to Ross in view of JP 2012004349 to Nagahara in view of US 2019/0136088 to Nojima.
Claims 12, 14-15, 17-18:
Ross teaches a method for forming a SiN film (3:60-61) by depositing perhydropolysilazane (7:49) and solvent (5:5-18) and subjecting the deposited coating to post-treatment e-beam in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (5-6:54-35) and heat treatment at 50-500 °C (6:36-39) in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (8:19-21). The e-beam energy will fall into the range of 0.5-100keV (6:9). This is equivalent to an accelerating voltage of 0.5-100kV. In terms of e-beam dosage, Ross teaches 1-500000 µC/cm2 (6:7-20). The examiner was not able to determine how this relates to the claimed MGy unit. However, Ross goes on to state the dose and energy selected will be proportional to the thickness where the value is easily determined by those skilled in the art (Id.). In this respect, the e-beam dosage is a result effective variable and obvious through routine optimization.
Ross does not teach an additional post-treatment of UV light exposure.
However, Nagahara teaches a method for forming a SiN film by depositing perhydropolysilazane (pg. 1) and further subjecting the deposited coating to post-treatment UV irradiation having a wavelength from 400-50 nm, more preferably 250-150 nm, in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (pg. 5). The vacuum UV range is 1-200 nm.
Further, Nojima teaches a method for forming a siliceous film by depositing perhydropolysilazane [0064] and further subjecting the deposited coating to a combination of post-treatment processes including e-beam treatment and light irradiation treatment [0089].
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 Ross and further include the UV irradiation step of Nagahara. Nojima establishes that a combination of post-treatment techniques is suitable for the curing/densification/conversion of a perhydropolysilazane coating.
Claim 16:
Ross teaches the synthesis of perhydropolysilazane with a MW of 1120 (8:1-2).
Claim 19:
Nagahara teaches UV irradiation energy of 0.5 kJ/m2 or more (pg. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Ross teaches the claimed accelerating voltage as discussed in the above rejection. Regarding the claim of unexpected results, the claims are not currently commensurate in scope with the evidence provided in the form of examples 1-4. It is noted that the improvement demonstrated in the examples compared to the comparative example is the addition of claimed step (iii) and not the particulars of the e-beam.
Regarding the combination of Nagahara and Ross and the drying method, this is considered to be a recitation of a non-preferred embodiment. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Something does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior. MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights