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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishihara [US 20150099623] in view of Kanda [WO2020261935] and Liu [CN113355643] and Kondo [US 20030085426].
Claim 1: Nishihara teaches a method of forming a conductive device [title] comprising loading a substrate into a sputtering chamber [0119]; introducing at least one target to the chamber [0085, 0089], wherein the layer may be sputtered by using two or more sputtering targets together with a plurality of power supplies [0089]; and injecting a noble gas into the chamber, wherein the noble gas may contain a reactant gas (mixed gas) [0085; 0089]; to form the oxide film [0089] such as BZY [0127]. However, Nishihara does not appear to explicitly teach the layer is used as an electrolyte layer, sintering the electrolyte layer. Kanda is provided.
Kanda teaches BZY is known to be used as an electrolyte layer and usually formed by sintering the material containing the electrolyte [pg 2, Issues to be solved]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the BZY conductive layer as an electrolyte layer and forming the electrolyte layer by sintering to form a fuel electrode device since Kanda teaches such material is well known in the art to be used for fuel electrode devices. However, the prior art does not appear to teach the targets are of BaCO3 and YZR alloy. Kondo is provided.
Kondo, directed to a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, teaches yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) ceramic can be used as a target for deposition [0012] and barium carbonate can be used as a target for deposition [0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to use these compounds such as YZR alloy and barium carbonate as targets since Kondo teaches these are suitable target materials for deposition.
Claim 3: Nishihara teaches that mixture of oxygen to argon can be 2:8 volume ratio [0119] and the pressure can be of 1Pa [0119]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide these gas conditions since Nishihara teaches this is a known and operable arrangement for depositing similar layers.
Claim 5: Nishihara teaches the BZY composite of a barium zirconate composite (Y:BaZrO3) doped with yttrium [0127].
Claim 6: Nishihara teaches the BZY can be 06:09:0.1 [0127], although the ratio is not exact, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the composition ratio through routine experimentation as result effective variable for specific film characteristics [0066].
Claim 7: Nishihara teaches the RF power can be 150 W [0120]. Although Nishihara does not explicitly teach different power is applied to each target, Nishihara does teach the plurality of targets can be supplied together with a plurality of power supplies [0089], and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of power arrangement options, such as the powers are all the same, powers are all different, or there is a mix of same and different powers.
Claim 8: Nishihara teaches the thickness is not more than 2 micrometers [0077]. Although Nishihara does not explicitly teach a deposition area of 2x2cm2 or more since Nishihara teaches the substrate has a diameter of 2 inches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit a layer up to 2 inches.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara in view of Kanda and Liu and Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai [CN112030013].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the ratio of zirconium to yttrium. Cai is provided.
Claim 2: Cai teaches a preparation method for a zirconium yttrium alloy target [abstract], where the alloy has a ratio of zirconium to yttrium from 5:1 to 99:95 [pg 4; specific implementation examples]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ratio of zirconium to yttrium since Cai teaches this ratio range is already known and operable for forming a zirconium yttrium alloy.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara in view of Kanda and Liu and Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuriyama [US 20200243915] and KR’977 [KR102272977].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach using optical sintering with a temperature of 500 degrees C or lower. Kuriyama and KR’977 are provided.
Claims 4 and 9: Kuriyama teaches that in order to enhance sintering, optical firing by using a flash lamp can be performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide optical sintering since Kuriyama teaches such addition serves to enhance the sintering process. However, Kuriyama does not appear to teach the optical sintering is 500 degrees C or lower. KR’977 is provided.
KR’977 teaches an optical sintering apparatus that performs optical sintering at range of extreme wave white light energy but simultaneously provide thermal sinter at a low temperature [pg 5, paragraph 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical sintering apparatus taught by KR’977 since this apparatus is capable of sintering a ceramic precursor by low temperate for a short time [technical field] and a substrate that has poor thermal stability may be used [pg 13, para 3].
Double Patenting
The no statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A no statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a no statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of no statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8 of cop ending Application No. 18452172. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application fully encompass the subject matter of the claims of the cop ending related application or alternatively the claims of the cop ending related application anticipate the claim in the instant application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
