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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 38-45, 47-74 are pending in this application. Amended claims 38, 45, 47, 49, 55-58 and canceled claim 46 are noted.
The amendment dated 03/16/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the abstract and claims. In view of said amendments, the objection to the abstract and claims and the 112 rejection have been withdrawn. In addition, in view of the amendment to independent claim 38 and the subsequent arguments on p.13, the previous art rejection has been withdrawn. As a result, this action is NOT made final. The examiner regrets the inconvenience.
Claims 73-74 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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.
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.
Claims 38-53, 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/091158 in view of Takeshita (EP 3808542A1) and JP 2004-103925 (see English Translation).
WO’158 teaches a method of forming an oxide superconductor thin film wherein a target is irradiated with laser beams and deposited on a substrate (abstract). In one embodiment, a compound film is formed (p.4 lines 25-28). In one embodiment, the pressure in the chamber is sub-atmospheric (p.6 lines 11-15), which reads on the claimed reaction atmosphere in a process chamber. The thickness appears to be 0.7 um (p.4 lines 5-11), which reads on the claimed thickness. However, the reference fails to specifically teach melting, sublimating, or evaporating.
Takeshita teaches irradiating a powder material with a laser beam to be melted (0025, 0042). It would have been obvious to use the laser in WO’158 for melting because Takeshita teaches of using a laser to melt a powder material.
In addition, the reference fails to teach the wall temperature. JP’925 teaches a method for forming pattern (title) in which a silicon oxide film is exposed to an ArF excimer laser (0001, 0066) in which the reaction chamber wall temperature is 30oC (0073). To utilize a wall temperature of 30oC in WO’158 would have been obvious because JP’295 teaches of using a wall temperature of 30oC in a deposition process.
Regarding claim 39, WO’158 teaches the target facing the substrate (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 40, Takeshita teaches continuous irradiation (0023-0025).
Regarding claim 41, WO’158 teaches a pressure of 1.33 to 100 Pa (p.3 lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 42-43, the applicant requires a different/lower first pressure. It is the examiner’s position that any time a gas is introduced into a chamber, the pressure inherently rises, thus reading on the claims.
Regarding claim 44, WO’158 teaches a pressure of 1.33 to 100 Pa (p.3 lines 25-27).
Regarding claims 45, WO’158 teaches a temperature of 200oC (0280).
Regarding claim 47, WO’158 teaches oxygen (p.3 line 25-29, p.8 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 48, Takeshita teaches a powder (0025).
Regarding claim 49, WO’158 teaches copper (p.4 lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 50, the applicant requires a specific power and a specific distance. WO’158 teaches a power of 800-1000 mJ (p.6 lines 4-10) and Takeshita teaches a distance in mm (0111). To vary the distance would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 51, WO’158 teaches a wavelength of 193nm and 248 nm (p.3 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 52, WO’158 teaches an oxide (p.4 lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 53, Takeshita teaches a nitride (0013).
Regarding claim 71, Takeshita teaches melting (0086).
Regarding claim 72, Takeshita teaches reaction (0227).
Claims 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/091158 in view of Takeshita (EP 3808542A1) and further in view of Burnsed et al. (2020/0400944). The combination of WO’158/Takeshita fails to teach the appropriate material.
Burnsed teaches of forming a tungsten selenide film on a substrate by pulsed laser deposition (0059). It would have been obvious to utilize a selenide film with the expectation of success depending on the use of the final product because Burnsed teaches of forming a selenidef film by laser deposition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 55-70 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is well known to deposit anatase TiO2 by laser vapor deposition at a pressure of 10 mTorr to 100 mTorr as noted in JP 4565170 B2. In addition, it is well known to use laser deposition to form:
nickel oxide as noted in Misawa et al. (WO 2019/131640) (claim 56);
cobalt oxide as noted in Hu et al. (2007/0039641) (claim 57);
iron oxide as noted in Ross et al. (WO 2004/023194) (claim 58);
copper oxide as noted in WO’158 above (claim 59);
vanadium oxide as noted in JP 2011-146190 (claim 60);
niobium oxide as noted in CN 106249500 (claim 61);
chromium oxide as noted in in CN 10372858 (claim 62) ;
ruthenium oxide as noted in CN 110828831 (claim 63);
zinc oxide as noted in Sittinger et al. (2013/0203211) (claim 64);
lithium manganese oxide as noted in Labyedh et al. (EP 3162764) (claim 65);
scandium oxide as noted in CN 110491771 (claim 66);
molybdenum oxide as noted in CN 102569072 (claim 67);
zirconium oxide as noted in Ahn et al. (2004/0023461) (claim 68);
hafnium oxide as noted in Ahn et al. (2004/0023461) (claim 69); and
aluminum oxide as noted in Okai et al. (2011/0175060) (claim 70).
With respect to the parameters for laser processing, it is well known to use a laser wavelength of 532 nm and 1064 nm as noted in Sullivan et al. (2015/0092053); a power density ranging from 1 to 10,000 kw/mm2 as noted in Sbetti (2018/0009061); and a 25 mm diameter substrate as noted in Knauss et al. (6,090,207). However, the reference fails to teach the claimed limitations to produce the claimed materials by laser deposition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.13, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 46 under the previous art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP 2004-103925. This action is NOT made final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights