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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. [US 2008/0050910 A1] in view of Miura et al. [US 2020/0312621 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Hart et al. discloses a method of forming at least one layer on a substrate made of a fluoridic material (paragraphs [0001], [0016] and [0017]), comprising:
generating a plasma from a gas mixture containing a first gas and a second gas (paragraphs [0029], [0032]), wherein the second gas has an ionization energy less than an ionization energy of the first gas, wherein the first gas is a noble gas, wherein the second gas is a further noble gas (paragraphs [0033] and [0044] teaches the mixture of a first gas and a second gas), and
depositing at least one coating material onto the substrate (21) using the plasma in plasma ion- assisted deposition (paragraphs [0016] and [0017], as shown in Fig. 1).
Hart et al. does not teach wherein the first gas and the second gas are selected such that that molecules of the second gas are ionized from excited molecules of the first gas through the Penning effect.
However, the use of the Penning effect to create a plasma for deposition is well known in art of semiconductor processing. Miura et al. discloses a method of depositing a film on a substrate wherein the plasma processing region through which the substrate passes, the ignition gas containing a noble gas and an additive gas that causes Penning effect by being added to the noble gas (paragraph [0006], see also claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use of the Penning effect to create a plasma for deposition, as taught by Miura et al. in the system of Hart et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative plasma ion- assisted deposition that is capable of suppressing damage to the substrate and generating plasma stably (paragraph [0005] of Miura et al.).
Regarding claims 2-4, Hart et al. discloses wherein the noble gas is Ar and the further noble gas is selected from the group consisting essentially of: Kr and Xe, wherein the noble gas is Kr and the further noble gas is Xe, wherein the noble gas is Ne and the further noble gas is selected from the group consisting essentially of: Ar, Kr and Xe (paragraph [0044] teaches the mixture of a first gas and a second gas).
Regarding claims 5-9, Hart et al. discloses wherein said generating comprises adding a third gas to the gas mixture, wherein the third gas is selected from the group consisting essentially of: O2, N2, O3, N2O, H2O2, and fluorine-containing gases, wherein the third gas is added to the gas mixture in a proportion of less than 2% by volume, wherein the third gas is added to the gas mixture in a proportion of less than 0.1% by volume, wherein the third gas is added to the gas mixture in a proportion of less than 0.001% by volume (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hart et al. discloses wherein the first gas and the second gas and/or the gas mixture are/is introduced via at least one gas inlet into a plasma source in which the plasma is generated, wherein the gas mixture is formed by introducing the first gas via a gas inlet into a plasma source in which the plasma is generated, and in which the second gas is introduced into a vacuum chamber in which the substrate is disposed, or introducing the second gas via the gas inlet into the plasma source in which the plasma is generated, and in which the first gas is introduced into the vacuum chamber in which the substrate is disposed (paragraph [0034], as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Hart et al. discloses wherein a coating rate in depositing the coating material is less than 10−10 m/s (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hart et al. discloses wherein an active ion energy of ions present in the plasma is less than 100 eV, wherein the active ion energy of the ions present in the plasma is between 45 eV and 100 eV (paragraphs [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Hart et al. discloses an optical element comprising: a substrate composed of a fluoridic material, a coating on the substrate that comprises at least one layer formed, wherein the substrate is composed of a metal fluoride (paragraphs [0016] and [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Hart et al. discloses wherein the second gas in the gas mixture of the first gas and the second gas is present in a proportion of less than 10% by volume (paragraphs [0033] and [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882