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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 19 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no evidence to show that i) the inventions of Groups I and II are unrelated and ii) the process of Group I can be used to make a materially different product than that of Group III (see Response at Pgs. 2-3). This is not found persuasive because i) the office stated the diverse design features among the inventions of Groups I and II (see Restriction Requirement at Pg. 2); and ii) the office observed the suitability of the process of Group I in producing a product different than that claimed by Group III (see Restriction Requirement at Pg. 2). Further, it is noted that with regard to i) the instant Specification does not appear to disclose these inventions as capable of use together. The evidence sought by Applicant is apparent in the claims as presented, directed to diverse inventions featuring diverse designs, and in the instant Specification, as observed by the office.
Applicant also traversed on the ground(s) that the office has not adequately demonstrated indications of distinctness with regard to the finding among Groups II and III (see Response at Pgs. 3-4). This not found persuasive since the office correctly observed diverse design features among the products of Claims 6 and 11, i.e. the requirement of a polysilazane-based compound in the former. The office further noted a lack of overlapping subject matter and that the instant Specification does not appear to show these products to be obvious variants of each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 22 March 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Additionally, the instant Specification is noted as listing several JP references and a WO reference at ¶ [0024]. These references should be cited in an Information Disclosure Statement in order to ensure they are made of record.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 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 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 does not expressly teach formation of multiple polysilazane-based compound layers; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so 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]).
Conclusion
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