DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s invention filed on 05/07/2024.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16. Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2023/0082914) in view of Ge (US 2018/0081085) in further view of Lin (US 2014/0360575).
Regarding claim 1, Cho shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) most aspects of the instant invention including a cover layer 1000, comprising:
A substrate 100
A first cover layer 300 disposed on the substrate 100
The first cover layer 300 including MgF2 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0056])
A second cover layer 400 disposed on the first cover layer 300
The second cover layer 400 including Si9Al2O10 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0062])
A third cover layer 500 disposed on the second cover layer 400
The third cover layer 500 including perfluorinated polyether (PEPE) (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0066])
The third cover layer 500 having a thickness in a range of about 10 nm to about 45 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0068])
However, Cho fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the substrate 100 is a sapphire substrate. Cho shows that the substrate 100 is a glass substrate (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0049]). Ge, in a similar device to Cho, shows (see, e.g., Ge: fig. 4) a substrate 36 that is a sapphire substrate (see, e.g., Ge: par. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the glass substrate of Cho or the sapphire substrate of Ge because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as substrate layers in transparent cover layers, as taught by Cho and Ge, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, Cho in view of Ge fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the first cover layer (MgF2) has a thickness in a range of about 16 nm to about 26 nm. Cho in view of Ge (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the first cover layer (MgF2) has a thickness in a range of about 50 nm to about 150 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0060]). Lin, in a similar device to Cho in view of Ge, shows (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 3) a layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0034]). Lin also shows (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 3) that the layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm is part of colored solar cell device reflects the incident light in a reflected visible wavelength band that ranges from 600 nm to 720 nm (similar to red color), and transmits the incident light in a transmitted visible wavelength band ranging from 400 nm to 600 nm with an average transmittance of greater than 90% in the transmitted visible wavelength band (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm of Lin in the device of Cho in view of Ge in order form a colored solar cell device that reflects the incident light in a reflected visible wavelength band that ranges from 600 nm to 720 nm, and transmits the incident light in a transmitted visible wavelength band ranging from 400 nm to 600 nm with an average transmittance of greater than 90% in the transmitted visible wavelength band.
However, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 45 nm to about 70 nm. Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 25 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]).
The courts have ruled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the thickness range values taught by Cho lies outside but are close to the claimed range values, and these oxide layers are of similar thicknesses (same order of magnitude) and are transparent to the incident light, their optical behavior is dominated by interference effects rather than simple absorption or reflection, which is associated with semiconductor fabrication. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation from one skilled in the art that non-obvious or unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the dimensions of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 that is an adhesion layer to best maximize the light transmission, as already suggested by Cho. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
However, the differences in the thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400, and Cho has identified such thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that:
A surface of the first cover layer 300 is in contact with the sapphire substrate 100
Another surface of the first cover layer 300 is in contact with a surface of the second cover layer 400
Another surface of the second cover layer 400 is in contact with a surface of the third cover layer 500
Regarding claim 3, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the first cover layer 300 includes a crystalline structure comprising MgF2 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that a refractive index of the first cover layer 300 is in a range of about 1.24 to about 1.52 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4, and also see, e.g., Lin: fig. 3) that the thickness of the first cover layer 300 is in a range of about 18 nm to about 24 nm (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the second cover layer 400 couples the first cover layer 300 to the third cover layer 500 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that a refractive index of the second cover layer is in a range of about 1.33 to about 1.63 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 25 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]).
However, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 52 nm to about 64 nm.
The courts have ruled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the thickness range values taught by Cho lies outside but are close to the claimed range values, and these oxide layers are of similar thicknesses (same order of magnitude) and are transparent to the incident light, their optical behavior is dominated by interference effects rather than simple absorption or reflection, which is associated with semiconductor fabrication. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation from one skilled in the art that non-obvious or unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the dimensions of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 that is an adhesion layer to best maximize the light transmission, as already suggested by Cho. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
However, the differences in the thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 18) of the mentioned thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400, and Cho has identified such thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that another surface of the third cover layer 500 is exposed.
Regarding claim 10, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that a refractive index of the third cover layer 500 is in a range of about 1.05 to about 1.59 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the third cover layer (PEPE) 500 has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 30 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]).
However, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the third cover layer (PEPE) 500 has a thickness in a range of about 32 nm to about 40 nm.
The courts have ruled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the thickness range values taught by Cho lies outside but are very close to the claimed range values, the different form the upper limit of the prior art range and the lower limit of the claimed range taught by Cho lies outside but is very close to the claimed range, i.e. within 5%, which is better than most error margins associated with semiconductor fabrication. Also, these oxide layers are of similar thicknesses (same order of magnitude) and are transparent to the incident light, their optical behavior is dominated by interference effects rather than simple absorption or reflection, which is associated with semiconductor fabrication. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation from one skilled in the art that non-obvious or unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the dimensions of the third cover layer (PEPE) 500 that is an adhesion layer to best maximize the light transmission, as already suggested by Cho. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
However, the differences in the thicknesses of the third cover layer (PEPE) 500 will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned thicknesses of the second cover layer (PEPE) 500, and Cho has identified such thicknesses of the second cover layer (PEPE) 500 as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 12, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4, and also see, e.g., Ge: fig. 4) that:
A refractive index of the sapphire substrate 100 is about 1.77 (see, e.g., Ge: fig. 8)
A refractive index of the first cover 300 layer is about 1.38 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0059])
A refractive index of the second cover layer 400 is about 1.48 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0064])
A refractive index of the third cover layer 500 is about 1.32 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0067])
Regarding claim 13, Cho shows (see, e.g., Cho: figs. 4 and 9) most aspects of the instant invention including a cover layer 1000, comprising:
A light-emitting-element layer ED including a light emitting element ED emitting light (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 9)
A cover layer 1000 disposed on the light-emitting-element layer ED (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 9)
The cover layer 1000 includes:
A substrate 100
A first cover layer 300 disposed on the substrate 100
The first cover layer 300 including MgF2 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0056])
A second cover layer 400 disposed on the first cover layer 300
The second cover layer 400 including Si9Al2O10 (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0062])
A third cover layer 500 disposed on the second cover layer 400
The third cover layer 500 including perfluorinated polyether (PEPE) (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0066])
The third cover layer 500 having a thickness in a range of about 10 nm to about 45 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0068])
However, Cho fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the substrate 100 is a sapphire substrate. Cho shows that the substrate 100 is a glass substrate (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0049]). Ge, in a similar device to Cho, shows (see, e.g., Ge: fig. 4) a substrate 36 that is a sapphire substrate (see, e.g., Ge: par. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the glass substrate of Cho or the sapphire substrate of Ge because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as substrate layers in transparent cover layers, as taught by Cho and Ge, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, Cho in view of Ge fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the first cover layer (MgF2) has a thickness in a range of about 16 nm to about 26 nm. Cho in view of Ge (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the first cover layer (MgF2) has a thickness in a range of about 50 nm to about 150 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0060]). Lin, in a similar device to Cho in view of Ge, shows (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 3) a layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0034]). Lin also shows (see, e.g., Lin: fig. 3) that the layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm is part of colored solar cell device reflects the incident light in a reflected visible wavelength band that ranges from 600 nm to 720 nm (similar to red color), and transmits the incident light in a transmitted visible wavelength band ranging from 400 nm to 600 nm with an average transmittance of greater than 90% in the transmitted visible wavelength band (see, e.g., Lin: par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the layer (of MgF2 material) 322 that has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm of Lin in the device of Cho in view of Ge in order form a colored solar cell device that reflects the incident light in a reflected visible wavelength band that ranges from 600 nm to 720 nm, and transmits the incident light in a transmitted visible wavelength band ranging from 400 nm to 600 nm with an average transmittance of greater than 90% in the transmitted visible wavelength band.
However, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin fails (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) to show that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 45 nm to about 70 nm. Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 25 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]).
The courts have ruled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the thickness range values taught by Cho lies outside but are close to the claimed range values, and these oxide layers are of similar thicknesses (same order of magnitude) and are transparent to the incident light, their optical behavior is dominated by interference effects rather than simple absorption or reflection, which is associated with semiconductor fabrication. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation from one skilled in the art that non-obvious or unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the dimensions of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 that is an adhesion layer to best maximize the light transmission, as already suggested by Cho. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
However, the differences in the thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the mentioned thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400, and Cho has identified such thicknesses of the second cover layer (Si9Al2O10) 400 as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0065]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these thickness values in the device of Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 14, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Cho: fig. 4) that the sum of the thickness of the first to third cover layers is in the range of about 80 nm to about 130 nm (see, e.g., Cho: par. [0060], [0065], and [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Ge: fig. 4) that a refractive index of the sapphire substrate is in a range of about 1.60 to about 1.95 (see, e.g., Ge: fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Cho in view of Ge in view of Lin shows (see, e.g., Ge: figs. 4, 9, and 11) that the cover layer has a transmittance of at least about 92% for 550 nm light and a reflectivity of less than about 8.50% for 550 nm light (see, e.g., Ge: figs. 9, and 11). (considering that transmittance T(%) = 100- R(%), where R is reflectivity).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
