17-20DETAILED 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 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 (0024, 0025, 0028, Fig. 1A). Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 – comprising silicon oxide (0039, 0050, Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C). Medwick discloses that protective coating – element 50 – is formed over at least a portion of the metallic silver layer (0010, 0024, Fig. 1A), thus, Medwick contemplates that that protective coating covers only a portion of the upper surface of the metallic silver layer – element 22.
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, while the encapsulation layer is disposed directly on the upper surface of the barrier 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 (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, wherein the protective coating – element 50 covers only a portion of the metallic silver layer, 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, wherein the encapsulation layer of Medwick comprising silicon oxide is disposed directly on the upper surface of the barrier layer, to prevent diffusion of silver into the encapsulation layer (Medwick, 0039).
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). Medwick discloses that element 102 – a basecoat – is optional, thus, when element 102 is not present in the optical device, the metallic silver layer – element 22 – is disposed directly on the substrate – element 12 (Fig. 1A).
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 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 102 – disposed on the substrate, the intermediate barrier layer comprising a metal nitride, the metallic silver layer being directly disposed on the intermediate barrier layer (0027, Fig. 1A).
With respect to claim 9, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 8. Medwick discloses the intermediate barrier layer has a thickness of 1 nm to 5 nm (0027). 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) 12-15 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 first barrier layer – element 102 – disposed on a substrate – element 12, wherein the first barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, and has a thickness of from 1 nm to 5 nm (0027, Fig. 1A). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 12; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Medwick discloses a metallic silver layer – element 22 – disposed on the first barrier layer (0028, Fig. 1A). Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 – comprising silicon oxide (0039, 0050, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1C). Medwick discloses that protective coating – element 50 – is formed over at least a portion of the metallic silver layer (0010, 0024, Fig. 1A), thus, Medwick contemplates that protective coating covers only a portion of the upper surface of the metallic silver layer.
Medwick is silent regarding a second barrier layer disposed on the metallic silver layer, wherein the second barrier layer comprises a metal nitride, wherein the second barrier layer has a lower surface opposite an upper surface, the lower surface directly deposited on the metallic silver layer, the second barrier layer having a thickness as recited in the claim.
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 (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, wherein the protective coating – element 50 covers only a portion of the metallic silver layer, 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, wherein the encapsulation layer of Medwick comprising silicon oxide is disposed directly on the upper surface of the barrier layer, to prevent diffusion of silver into the encapsulation layer (Medwick, 0039). Regarding a thickness of the second barrier layer of about 1 nm to 45 nm, Baret discloses that the barrier layer has a thickness of about 50 nm (col. 3, lines 17-19). The thickness of “about 50 nm” has been interpreted as overlapping the thickness recited in the claim. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
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 second 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 second barrier layer comprises titanium nitride (col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 41-45). Medwick is silent regarding the first barrier layer comprising 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 first 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).
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 and 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), comprising a first barrier layer – element 102 – disposed on a substrate – element 12, wherein the substrate comprised glass (0025), wherein the first barrier layer comprises a silicon nitride, and has a thickness of from 1 nm to 5 nm (0027, Fig. 1A). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 18; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Medwick discloses a metallic silver layer – element 22 – disposed on the first barrier layer (0028, Fig. 1A). Medwick discloses an encapsulation layer – element 24 – comprising silicon oxide (0039, 0050, Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1C). Medwick discloses that protective coating – element 50 – is formed over at least a portion of the metallic silver layer (0010, 0024, Fig. 1A), thus, Medwick contemplates that protective coating covers only a portion of the upper surface of the metallic silver layer.
Medwick is silent regarding a second barrier layer disposed on the metallic silver layer, wherein the second barrier layer comprises a silicon nitride, wherein the second barrier layer has a lower surface opposite an upper surface, the lower surface directly deposited on the metallic silver layer, the second barrier layer having a thickness as recited in the claim.
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 silicon nitride (col. 2, lines 47-48), wherein the barrier layer is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer to prevent diffusion of silver into the glass substrate (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 silicon nitride, wherein the protective coating – element 50 covers only a portion of the metallic silver layer, and wherein the second barrier layer is directly deposited on the metallic silver layer, wherein the encapsulation layer of Medwick comprising silicon oxide is disposed on the upper surface of the second barrier layer, to prevent diffusion of silver into the encapsulation layer (Medwick, 0039). Regarding a thickness of the second barrier layer of about 1 nm to 45 nm, Baret discloses that the barrier layer has a thickness of about 50 nm (col. 3, lines 17-19). The thickness of “about 50 nm” has been interpreted as overlapping the thickness recited in the claim. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 20, Medwick and Baret teach the device of claim 18. Baret discloses the second barrier layer comprises titanium nitride and silicon nitride (col. 1, lines 53-55, col. 2, lines 41-45). Medwick discloses the first layer comprises silicon nitride (0027).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record does not teach or suggest a thickness of the second barrier layer having a range as recited in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of Applicant’s clarification, 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 10 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Medwick and Baret in rejecting claim 1, as presented in the recent Office Action, specifically with respect to the barrier layer being on the wrong side of the metallic silver layer, the present Office Action clarifies the position of the barrier layer, as discussed above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights