DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/28/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takai (JP H 10130844A which has been machine translated).
As to claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, Takai discloses a method for easily forming a water-repellent silicon oxide film with good adhesion to a base (glass substrate) for use in semiconductor products. The film comprises a hard layer (silicon oxide film) a gradient layer and a water-repellant layer. The gradient layer is located between those two layers and wherein the concentration of the carbon and fluorine gradually decrease toward the boundary direction and becomes substantially zero at the boundary surface. As the layer is formed under hydrogen gas which will react with the F it will also be considered to have a hydrogen gradient and be considered a hydrogenated silicon layer.
As to claim 12, Takai discloses that it can have an average IR transmission of greater than 90% though the film.
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 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai (JP H 10130844A which has been machine translated).
As to claims 2-7, Takai anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the specifics of the atomic% of silicon and that the silicon layer comprises less than 3% of hydrogen and/or carbon as well as having the carbon content increase at least 1%.
Takai discloses a silicon oxide film that produces a gradient layer in the middle between two layers. The gradient is formed in the presence of gasses including hydrogen gas and that the gradient at the boundary on surface near the hard coat as no carbon and fluorine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takai to have formed the coating to have a silicon atomic% of at least 97 while having carbon at an amount of 3% or less and have the carbon content increase at least 1% over a thickness section of 50 nm because controlling these materials in the layer will affect the mechanical stress and hardness of the layer as well as water repellency of the layer as one would know how to optimize the layer to have good hardness and high water repellency within the layer.
As to claims 8 and 9, Takai anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the specifics for the formula.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takai to have formed the coating to have a silicon atomic% of at least 97 while having carbon at an amount of 3% or less and have the carbon content increase at least 1% over a thickness section of 50 nm because controlling these materials in the layer will affect the mechanical stress and hardness of the layer as well as water repellency of the layer as one would know how to optimize the layer to have good hardness and high water repellency within the layer. By having formed this layer it would meet the r values of greater than 1.4 as it’s the same materials with the same percentages and containing a carbon gradient.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takai (JP H 10130844A which has been machine translated) in view of Kimura (CN 101335273 which has been machine translated).
Takai anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the specifics of the substrate.
Kuroki discloses a semiconductor device wherein the substrate is made from quartz as well as borosilicate glass and the substrate can be a bent or flexible substrate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Takai and used the substrate of Kuroki to have it be borosilicate glass and be bent (curved) as it would be a suitable alternative used within semiconductor technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights