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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-28, 30-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussarrat (US 2009/0203222) in view of Gordon (US 4377613). Gordon2 (US 4265974) is included as an incorporation by reference.
Claims 19-22, 24, 27-29, 37-38:
Dussarrat teaches a method for depositing a hafnium containing coating onto a substrate (abstract). The precursor mixture is Hf(NMe2)4 [0008], a carrier gas such as He [0040], molecular oxygen [0060], and a carbon source such as ethylene [0064]. The process deposits hafnium oxide [0019; 0073].
Dussarrat does not teach applying the precursor mixture onto a glass substrate.
However, Gordon teaches a method for coating glass with functional, inorganic coatings (1:5-12). The process for forming the films includes vaporizing the precursor mixture and then introducing the vapor to the space above the heated glass (col. 8; 10:21-25). The resulting refractive index of the coating is taken to be an inherent property of the deposited material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the precursor mixture of Dussarrat to deposit a hafnium layer onto a glass substrate. Gordon states that a wide range of transparent metal oxides can be applied to glass including those of hafnium (6-7:59-25).
Claims 23, 32:
The thickness of the resulting hafnium layer is a result effective process variable that would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set based on the desired properties of the resulting film. In this case, optical, electrical, and semiconducting properties. Additionally, Gordon teaches a relatively thick functional coating (tin oxide in this case) of 200 nm (2000 angstroms) (10:35). This is deposited over 10 seconds (10:39), resulting in a deposition rate of 200 angstroms per second. The deposition rate is another process variable that would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set based on the desired thickness of resulting film.
Claims 25-26:
Gordon teaches the glass substrate is 600 °C during deposition (10:24).
Claim 30-31:
Gordon teaches soda lime float glass as the substrate (10:44-45).
Claims 33-35:
Gordon teaches forming two thin layers of transparent material between the glass and the semiconductor film (2-3:67-1). The layers are glass/tin oxide (H)/silica (L)/semiconductor (Table A and B). The silica layer is 0.028 microns (280 angstroms).
Claim 36:
Gordon teaches atmospheric CVD (8:6) and recites Gordon2 as incorporated by reference (9:1). Gordon2 teaches rotating the substrate (4:52). A well-mixed, uniform precursor mixture would have been obvious for uniform layer formation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although Dussarrat does not list glass as a substrate, Gordon does provide the motivation for applying hafnium oxide coating to glass (6-7:59-25).
Dussarrat is considered to teach a precursor gas mixture that includes the olefinic hydrocarbon ethylene [0064] that reacts with the organohafnium compound to produce hafnium oxide [0019; 0073]. That is, the reactant carbon source, although present, does not appear in any of the resulting deposited layers.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights