DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/14/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites separately injecting an ionized gas shroud. However, the specification only describes a gas shroud which is injected and, after injection, becomes ionized due to its interaction with the plasma afterglow. This disclosure does not provide support for the amendment to claim 1 which requires injecting an ionized gas shroud. At most, it provides support for injecting a non-ionized gas shroud which is later ionized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 11-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facchetti et al. (US 2013/0196469) in light of Yukinobu et al. (US 2012/0223302) and Johnson et al. (US 2003/0160033).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20 and 22: Facchetti teaches a method of making a metal oxide thin film (Abst.), comprising the steps of: depositing a precursor on a glass substrate via inkjet printing (¶¶ 0058, 0065, 0076), wherein the precursor comprises at least one metallic oxidant salt species, such as indium nitrate (¶¶ 0041, 0044, 0047) and at least one organic complexing fuel species, such as acetylacetone (i.e. claimed ketone) or nitromethane (i.e. claimed aliphatic organic nitro compound) (¶¶ 0040, 0045); and combusting the precursor to form a metal oxide, such as indium oxide, wherein oxygen for the oxide layer comes at least partially from the oxidant (¶¶ 0040-0041).
Facchetti also teaches that the film can be subjected to a plasma treatment (see, e.g., ¶ 0126), but fails to detail such a step. Like Facchetti, Yukinobu teaches a method of forming a thin film metal oxide for electronic device (Abst.; ¶ 0005) and explains that, after forming the metal oxide, the metal oxide is subjected to plasma treatment using air as an oxidizing gas (i.e. plasma treatment which does not require a vacuum or inert environment) in order to provide oxygen vacancies in the metal oxide film (¶¶ 0213-0218). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have subjected the metal oxide film of Facchetti to the plasma treatment of Yukinobu in order to have introduced oxygen vacancies into the film.
Facchetti and Yukinobu fails to teach separately injecting a gas shroud. Johnson teaches a process of plasma treatment and explains that the process should include a separate means for injecting a gas shroud (¶ 0013) where the gas shroud surrounds the plasma (including its afterglow) in order to confine the plasma and increase its density (¶ 0016). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized a separately injected gas shroud around the plasma in the process of Facchetti, as modified by Yukinobu, in order to have ensured confinement of the plasma.
With respect to the shroud being ionized, Johnson fails to expressly teach ionization. However, the combined process of Facchetti, Yukinobu and Johnson teaches the same process steps using the same materials which applicant discloses will cause ionization of the shroud via contact with the afterglow (see, e.g., p. 12 of the specification). Accordingly, it is considered inherent that some ionization of the gas shroud will necessarily occur in modified Facchetti.
Claim 4: Facchetti fails to teach a specific nozzle speed for inkjet printing. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the nozzle speed is a result effective variable where an operator balances how quickly deposition should occur versus the degree of care in ensuring a uniform deposition. Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a nozzle speed of 1 mm/s or greater with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11: While Facchetti does not discuss the role of the complexing fuel species as a complexing ligand, the features of claim 11 are considered inherent in Facchetti because Facchetti teaches the same compounds as those which applicant discloses to provide these features.
Claim 14: While Facchetti does not expressly state that oxygen is provided by the nitromethane, it is considered inherent that oxygen would be provided by the nitromethane because applicant discloses that the nitromethane would provide oxygen in the same reaction that is disclosed by Facchetti.
Claims 15 and 17: Yukinobu teaches that the plasma provide an inert environment by using helium as an ionizing gas (¶¶ 0213, 0215).
Claim 16: Yukinobu teaches RF plasma (¶ 0208).
Claim 19: Johnson teaches that the shroud gas is air, nitrogen or helium (¶ 0079).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Johnson fails to ionization of the gas shroud. This is not persuasive. While Johnson is silent regarding ionization, Johnson teaches the same gases and same conditions which applicant discloses to cause ionization of the gas shroud. Therefore, ionization is considered inherent.
Applicant also argues that Johnson teaches a high resistance path in the gas shroud and that this teaches away from ionization. This is not persuasive. While a highly ionized gas would be more conductive, the degree of ionization has a significant impact on the resistivity of the gas. Therefore, lower levels of ionization would not be outside the scope of Johnson. Furthermore, as discussed above, ionization occurs due to contact with the afterglow of the plasma. Thus, the gas shroud would serve its containment purpose due to ionization occurring over time rather than immediately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights