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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “about 75 atomic percent (at%) to 99 at% of metallic silver.” The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes that as the “atomic percentage” limitation is disclosed in the specification as “at%” the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “about 75 at% to 99 at% of metallic silver.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medwick et al. (US 2009/0233106 A1) (“Medwick”), in view of Baret (US 5968637).
With respect to claim 1, Medwick discloses an encapsulated optical device (abstr., 0039), comprising a metallic silver layer – element 22 - disposed on a substrate – element 12 (0025, 0028, Figs. 1B and 1C). Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 (0050, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick is silent regarding a barrier layer disposed on the metallic silver layer, wherein the barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and wherein the barrier layer has a lower surface opposite an upper surface, and the lower surface is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer.
Baret discloses an optical device (abstr.), comprising a barrier layer – element 2 - disposed on the metallic silver layer – element 3, wherein the barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, wherein the barrier layer has a lower surface opposite an upper surface, and the lower surface is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate which causes yellow coloring of the glass (col. 1, lines 45-49, col. 2, lines 24-33, Fig.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a barrier layer disposed on the metallic silver layer in the optical device of Medwick, wherein the barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and wherein the barrier layer has a lower surface opposite an upper surface, and the lower surface is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate of Medwick (0025), which would cause yellowing of the glass.
With respect to claim 2, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. Medwick discloses the metallic silver layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm (0028). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 2; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Medwick and Beret teach the device of claim 1. Baret discloses the barrier layer comprises silicon nitride (col. 1, 53-55, col. 2, lines 46-47).
As to claim 4, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. Baret discloses titanium nitride (col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 41-45).
With respect to claim 5, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. Baret discloses the barrier layer has a thickness of greater than about 50 nm (col. 1, lines 60-61, col. 2, lines 48-49). “Greater than about 50 nm” has been interpreted as overlapping the range of claim 5, of “about 1 nm to about 50 nm.” Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 6, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. The references do not specify explicitly that the encapsulation layer has a thickness of about 10 nm to about 200 nm, but Medwick teaches that the encapsulation layer protects the underlying layers from attack by environmental hazards such as atmospheric pollutants, water, mechanical hazards (0022), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the encapsulation layer in the device of Medwick and Baret to ensure proper protection for underlying layers.
Regarding claim 7, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. Medwick discloses the substrate comprises glass (0025).
As to claim 8, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. Medwick discloses an intermediate barrier layer – element 40 – disposed on the substrate, the intermediate barrier layer comprising a metal nitride, the metallic silver layer being directly disposed on the intermediate barrier layer – layers 104 and 106 are optional (0034, 0037, 0038, Figs. 1B and 1C).
With respect to claim 9, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 8. Medwick discloses the intermediate barrier layer has a thickness of at least 20 nm (0038). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 9; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1. The references do not specify explicitly that the metallic silver layer contains about 75 at% to 99 at% of metallic silver, however, Medwick discloses that the silver layer is formed by a sputtering process (0028), which yields layers having higher chemical purity than conventional wet chemistry methods (0049), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the atomic percentage of metallic silver in the layer of Medwick satisfies the range recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medwick in view of Baret, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US 2020/0095164 A1) (“Shibuya”).
With respect to claim 11, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the refractive index of the substrate as recited in the claim.
Shibuya discloses a glass substrate to be used in optical devices (abstr.), the substrate having a refractive index of 1.68 or more (abstr., 0001, 0012). The range of the refractive index overlaps the range recited in claim 11; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate of the device of Medwick and Baret having refractive index in the range recited in Shibuya as such substrates are known in the art of optical devices.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medwick et al. (US 2009/0233106 A1) (“Medwick”), in view of Baret (US 5968637).
With respect to claim 12, Medwick discloses an encapsulated optical device (abstr., 0039), comprising a second barrier layer – element 40 – disposed on a substrate, wherein the second barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and a metallic silver layer disposed on the second barrier layer – layers 104 and 106 are optional (0034, 0037, 0038, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick discloses a substrate – element 12 (0025, 0028, Figs. 1B and 1C), and an encapsulation layer – element 24 (0050, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick is silent regarding a first barrier layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the first barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and wherein metallic silver layer is disposed in the first barrier layer.
Baret discloses an optical device (abstr.), comprising a barrier layer – element 2 - disposed in the metallic silver layer – element 3, wherein the barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, wherein the barrier layer has a lower surface opposite and upper surface , and the lower surface is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate which causes yellow coloring of the glass (col. 1, lines 45-49, col. 2, lines 24-33, Fig.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first barrier layer disposed on the substrate and the metallic silver layer disposed on the first barrier layer in the optical device of Medwick, wherein the first barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate of Medwick (0025), which would cause yellowing of the glass.
Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 (0050, Figs. 1B and 1C). Regarding the encapsulation layer comprising silicon dioxide disposed directly on the upper surface of the second barrier layer, Medwick discloses element 24 comprising silicon dioxide (0039) and a protective layer – element 50 - comprising silicon dioxide (0029), element 50 disposed directly on the upper surface of the second barrier layer – element 40 (Figs. 1B and 1C), wherein elements 50 and 24 together were interpreted as corresponding to the encapsulation layer of claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 12. Medwick discloses the metallic silver layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 500 nm (0028). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 13; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 12. Baret discloses the barrier layer comprises silicon nitride (col. 1, 53-55, col. 2, lines 46-47).
As to claim 15, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 12. Baret discloses the first barrier layer comprises titanium nitride (col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 41-45). Medwick discloses the second barrier layer comprises a metal nitride (0038), but is silent regarding that metal nitride being one of the nitrides recited in the claim, but since according to Baret titanium nitride is known in the art as a component of layers in optical devices, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include titanium nitride in the second barrier layer, as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 16, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 12. The references do not specify explicitly that the metallic silver layer contains about 75 at% to 99 at% of metallic silver, however, Medwick discloses that the silver layer is formed by sputtering process (0028), which yields layers having higher chemical purity than conventional wet chemistry methods (0049), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the atomic percentage of metallic silver in the layer of Medwick satisfies the range recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medwick in view of Baret, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US 2020/0095164 A1) (“Shibuya”).
With respect to claim 17, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 12, but are silent with respect to the refractive index of the substrate as recited in the claim.
Shibuya discloses a glass substrate to be used in optical devices (abstr.), the substrate having a refractive index of 1.68 or more (abstr., 0001, 0012). The range of the refractive index overlaps the range recited in claim 17; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate of the device of Medwick and Baret having refractive index in a range recited in Shibuya as such substrates are known in the art of optical devices.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medwick et al. (US 2009/0233106 A1) (“Medwick”), in view of Baret (US 5968637).
With respect to claim 18, Medwick discloses an encapsulated optical device (abstr., 0039), wherein the substrate – element 12 - comprises glass (0025), and comprising a metallic silver layer – element 22 (0025, 0028, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick discloses a second barrier layer - element 40 - disposed on the metallic silver layer - layers 104 and 106 are optional (0034, 0037, 0038, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick discloses the second barrier layer comprises a metal nitride (0038). Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 – comprising silicon oxide disposed in the second barrier layer – element 40 (0039, Figs. 1B and 1C).
Medwick is silent regarding a first barrier layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the first barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, a metallic element, a metal nitride or any combination thereof, and wherein metallic silver layer is disposed in the first barrier layer.
Baret discloses an optical device (abstr.), comprising a barrier layer – element 2 - disposed in the metallic silver layer – element 3, wherein the barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, wherein the barrier layer has a lower surface opposite and upper surface , and the lower surface is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate which causes yellow coloring of the glass (col. 1, lines 45-49, col. 2, lines 24-33, Fig.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first barrier layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the first barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and wherein metallic silver layer is disposed on the first barrier layer, to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate of Medwick (0025), which would cause yellowing of the glass.
Regarding claim 19, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 18. Baret discloses the barrier layer which has been interpreted as corresponding to the first barrier layer having a thickness of greater than about 50 nm (col. 1, lines 60-61, col. 2, lines 48-49). “Greater than about 50 nm” has been interpreted as overlapping the range of claim 19, of “about 1 nm to about 50 nm.” Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Medwick discloses the second barrier layer has a thickness of at least 20 nm (0038). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding the thickness of the encapsulation layer, the references do not specify explicitly that the encapsulation layer has a thickness of about 10 nm to about 200 nm, but Madwick teaches that the encapsulation layer protects the underlying layers from attack by environmental hazards such as atmospheric pollutants, water, mechanical hazards (0022), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the encapsulation layer in the device of Medwick and Baret to ensure the proper protection for underlying layers.
As to claim 20, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 18. Baret discloses the first barrier layer comprises titanium nitride and silicon nitride (col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 41-45). Medwick discloses the second layer comprises a metal nitride (0038), but is silent regarding that metal nitride being one of the nitrides recited in the claim, but since according to Baret titanium nitride and silicon nitride are known in the art as components of layers in optical devices, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include titanium nitride and/or silicon nitride in the second barrier layer, as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783