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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 02 March 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-031961 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 June 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0076133 to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”).
With regard to Claims 1-2, Suzuki teaches a method for manufacturing a gas barrier laminate via forming a layer of inorganic deposited film or a polysilazane-based compound on a substrate (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0025], [0060], [0068]-[0085]). In the case of forming a layer of polysilazane-based compound, said compound is subsequently modified after layer formation via treatment (see ¶¶ [0025], [0060], [0085]). Suzuki teaches deposition of layer materials using any known method without particular limitation (see ¶¶ [0092]). In the case of inorganic deposited film material, Suzuki teaches formation thereof via multilayer application (see ¶ [0067]).
Suzuki teaches the thickness of layers such as the polysilazane-based compound is not particularly limited (see ¶ [0090]). Although Suzuki does not expressly teach formation of multiple polysilazane-based compound layers; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deposited multiple layers of any thickness, including thicknesses within the claimed range, in view of Suzuki’s disclosure to deposit an alternative layer material as such. It would have otherwise been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have laminated first and second layers of polysilazane-based compound to achieve a desired thickness of a polysilazane-based compound layer prior to modification treatment thereof.
With regard to Claim 3, Suzuki teaches modification treatment such that a composition gradient is developed in the direction of an outer surfaced towards the substrate surface (see ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0103], [0120], [0130]-[0131], [0143]-[0144]).
With regard to Claim 4, Suzuki does not expressly teach the claimed layer thickness ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have deposited an initial layer thicker than subsequently applied layers in order to exercise a high degree of control of overall layer thickness in obtaining a desired thickness.
With regard to Claim 5, Suzuki teaches formation of a gas barrier laminate layer within the claimed thickness (see ¶ [0090]).
With regard to Claim 13, Suzuki teaches ion implantation at doses and treatment conditions sufficient to meet intended use of the laminate (see ¶ [0140], [0143]). The reference does not expressly teach the claimed duration; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed duration throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining a laminate fit for a desired use.
Similarly, with regard to Claim 14, Suzuki teaches treatment depth can be controlled in order to meet intended use (see ¶¶ [0130], [0143]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have obtained a thickness of modification treatment within the claimed range.
With regard to Claim 15, Suzuki teaches thickness ratios of modified regions within the claimed range (see Abstract; ¶ [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered in view of the claims as amended but are not found persuasive. As noted herein, Suzuki teaches multiple layer application operations, and that polysilazane-component layer thickness is not particularly limited in pursuit of a desired overall layer thickness.
New grounds of rejection are presented herein in response to the claims as amended.
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 Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights