DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 13-21, in the reply filed on September 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the Office has not provided anything but a mere conclusion that the shared technical features do not make a contribution over the art and the Office has not pointed to any facts or any rationale that Applicant's claims do not make a contribution over the art. However, the Examiner disagrees. As previously pointed out, Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a layer A on at least one side of a base material, wherein the layer A contains at least aluminum (Al) and oxygen (O), and a different composition ratio O/Al of aluminum (Al) and oxygen (O) in terms of length in a depth direction in the layer A, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of JP 10-323933 A, JP 2013-28018A, JP 2008-121122 A, and JP 2017-177343 A. Hence, the restriction requirement is maintained.
Claims 13-24 are pending of which claims 22-24 are withdrawn and claims 13-21 are now under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
3. Claims 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO 2013/015315 A1).
Nakamura et al. disclose a film having excellent gas barrier properties (especially water vapor-barrier properties) and a device using this film are provided. The film (equivalent to the laminate of the claimed invention) is obtained by laminating on at least one surface of a base film an anchor layer (equivalent to the base material of the claimed invention) formed by the cured product of a polymerizable composition which contains a vinyl compound, and then laminating a vapor-deposited layer of aluminum oxide (equivalent to the layer A of the claimed invention) such that the peak of the composition ratio (y/x) of the aluminum oxide (AlxOy) is 2.1-3.0 and the density of the aluminum oxide is 3.4 g/cm3 or higher. The film includes an aluminum oxide vapor deposition layer having a specific composition ratio and / or density in at least a partial region in the thickness direction such that the specific composition ratio is different from the composition ratio of conventional aluminum oxide and that gas is transported in the vapor deposition layer, and high barrier properties are expressed. In addition, the high density region of aluminum oxide has a dense structure and exhibits high barrier properties. FIG. 1 is a schematic cross-sectional view for explaining a region where aluminum oxide has a specific composition ratio and / or density in the film. In this Figure, the film 1 is provided with a vapor deposition layer 3 made of aluminum oxide on an anchor layer 2. In the vapor deposition layer 3, the composition ratio and / or density of normal aluminum oxide in the region 3 a on the surface side. Unlike the normal aluminum oxide, the region 3b on the interface side with the anchor layer has a specific composition ratio and / or density. One or a plurality of regions 3 b may be formed in the vapor deposition layer 3. For example, the plurality of regions 3b may be formed at a predetermined interval in the surface direction. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram for explaining the interface between the vapor deposition layer and the anchor layer in the XPS spectrum. In FIG. 2, the vertical axis represents the ratio of elements present in the vapor deposition layer, and the horizontal axis represents the depth corresponding to the etching time. The interface between the vapor deposition layer and the anchor layer varies depending on the surface roughness of the anchor layer, and the element ratio of Al and O often varies. The composition ratio of aluminum oxide is not particularly limited as long as in at least a partial region in the thickness direction of the vapor deposition layer, the composition ratio of aluminum oxide (ratio of oxygen atoms to aluminum atoms) or the average value thereof is, for example, 1.8 to 3.0. The thickness (or average thickness) of the vapor deposition layer may be selected from a range of about 5 to 100 nm (meeting the limitations of claim 20). (See Abstract and all Figures, paragraphs 0068, 0070-0072, 0077).
Nakamura et al. does not specifically teach that a site corresponding to 5.0 to 25.0%, a site corresponding to 40.0 to 60.0%, and a site corresponding to 75.0 to 95.0%, in terms of length in a depth direction in the layer A, are defined as an X portion, a Y portion, and a Z portion, respectively, there are sites having a different composition ratio O/Al of aluminum (Al) and oxygen (O).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form an aluminum oxide film with a site corresponding to 5.0 to 25.0%, a site corresponding to 40.0 to 60.0%, and a site corresponding to 75.0 to 95.0%, in terms of length in a depth direction in the layer A, such that the sites have a different composition ratio O/Al of aluminum (Al) and oxygen (O) or forming a layer A with a composition ratio O/AI of aluminum (Al) and oxygen (O) such that 1.20 < O/AI < 2.20, given that Nakamura et al. teach using composition ratios that are different from the composition ratio of conventional aluminum oxide allows for the formation of high barrier properties. With regards to the property limitations and specifically the peak intensity, the water vapor permeability, the total light transmittance, the Examiner takes the position that such limitations are inherent in the laminate taught by Nakamura et al. given that the structure and chemical composition of the laminate as taught by Nakamura et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical.
4. Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO 2013/015315 A1) in view of Nomura et al. (US 2013/0043466 A1).
Nakamura et al., as discussed above, do not teach that hydrogen is further contained in the layer A, and with respect to the average composition of the layer A, aluminum (Al) atomic concentration : oxygen (O) atomic concentration : hydrogen (H) atomic concentration is 15.0 to 40.0 : 40.0 to 55.0 : 10.0 to 35.0 (atm%).
However, Nomura et al. disclose a semiconductor device including an oxide semiconductor and including a more excellent gate insulating film is provided. The gate insulating film includes a silicon nitride oxide film, a silicon oxynitride film formed over the silicon nitride oxide film, and a metal oxide film (such as aluminum oxide) formed over the silicon oxynitride film. The oxide semiconductor film is formed over and in contact with the metal oxide film. FIGS. 11A and 11B show that in an aluminum oxide film having a film density of approximately 3.0 g/cm3, hydrogen (H) atoms and deuterium (D) atoms pass through the aluminum oxide film and are diffused into the silicon oxide film. On the other hand, in Sample 4 which includes the aluminum oxide film having a film density of approximately 3.8 g/cm3, diffusion of hydrogen (H) atoms and deuterium (D) atoms is suppressed in the aluminum oxide film. In hydrogen (H) atoms and deuterium (D) atoms, the concentrations are drastically decreased in the aluminum oxide film at a depth of around 30 nm; thus, it can be said that the diffusion of hydrogen (H) atoms and deuterium (D) atoms can be suppressed even when the thickness of the aluminum oxide film is 50 nm. Nomura et al. state that the barrier properties of the aluminum oxide film to hydrogen (H) atoms and deuterium (D) atoms are varied depending on the film density of the aluminum oxide film. (See Abstract, Figures and paragraphs 00247-00249).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to control the concentration of hydrogen atoms in the aluminum oxide film given that Nomura et al. specifically disclose that hydrogen atoms can diffuse an aluminum oxide films depending on the density of the film and hydrogen atom concentrations are drastically decreased in the aluminum oxide film at a depth of around 30 nm.
With regards to the property limitations and specifically the peak intensity limitation, the Examiner takes the position that such limitations are inherent in the laminate taught by Nakamura et al. and Nomura et al. given that the structure and chemical composition of the laminate as taught by Nakamura et al. and Nomura et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787