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 § 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.
Claims 16-20, 26-30, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (US 2003/0013607 A1) in view of Dadheech et al. (US 2018/ 0154345 A1).
Regarding claim 16 and 19, Morikawa et al. teaches a Ti-Cr-O-N film on a substrate (abstract, Figure 12A). The ratio of the N atoms is defined between 0-13% (paragraphs [0010], [0014]), and Cr doped with N can be used (paragraphs [0083], [0093]-[0100]. Titanium oxide, TiO2 is used (paragraph [0007]). The crystal phase of the TiO2 can be rutile, anatase, or a combination of anatase and rutile (paragraphs [0040], [0058], [0101]). The TiO2 film is arranged on the Ti-Cr-O-N layer, in which the amounts of N and Cr become smaller at the front of the surface is approached and the TiO2 is exposed on the front most surface (figures 12A, 12B; paragraphs [0112]-[0114]). Morikawa et al. does not teach the percentage of anatase to rutile.
However, Dadheech et al. teaches a TiO2 catalyst with a photocatalytic active material including greater than or equal to about 50% by volume anatase phase of TiO2 (paragraphs [0014], [0019], [0050]). Dadheech et al. teaches the anatase phase may exhibit a higher photocatalytic activity than rutile TiO2, and while the amount of anatase is desirably maximized, both anatase and rutile form of TiO2 may be present (paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and to have utilized the range of anatase TiO2 for the film taught by the Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Dadheech et al., to ensure maximum catalyst activity.
Regarding claim 17, Morikawa et al. teaches the Cr layer is deposited on a carrier substrate (Figure 12A).
Regarding claim 18, Morikawa et al. teaches a layered structure, with TiO2 exposed on the front most surface due to the sputtering technique (paragraph [0113, 0114]).
Regarding claim 20, Morikawa et al. teaches the titanium oxide layer, but is silent on the layer thickness.
However, Dadheech et al. teaches the TiO2 layer with an average thickness of less than or equal to about 50 nm, with the photocatalytic activity of the anatase increasing with increasing thickness of the catalyst, and the layer is not limited and may have a thickness above the amounts listed (paragraphs [0050], [0051]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and use the thickness of the TiO2 layer with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Dadheech et al., to increase the photocatalytic ability of the catalyst.
Regarding claim 26, Morikawa et al. teaches the substrate as various materials such as glass and ceramic (paragraphs [0038], [0080]).
Regarding claim 27, Morikawa et al. does not teach the use of the photocatalytic layer in a sensor (paragraph [0121]).
However, Dadheech et al. teaches the photocatalytic TiO2 with a self-cleaning aspect, in order to protect the photocatalyst from degradation by removing residues from fingerprints, squalene, oils, and organic materials deposited by the touch of the operator. The self-cleaning system enhances the cleanliness and readability of reflective or transparent surfaces for lenses, sensors, and the like (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and use the photocatalytic film taught by Morikawa et al. for use in a sensor as taught by Dadheech et al. for the purpose of removing oils and organic residues on the exposed surface.
Regarding claim 28, Morikawa et al. teaches the substrate as various materials such as glass and ceramic (paragraphs [0038], [0080]). Morikawa et al. does not specifically teach borosilicate or quartz glass.
However, Dadheech et al. teaches a substrate that comprises of silicon dioxide, which includes sodium borosilicate and other glasses (paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and use borosilicate glass as the substrate taught by Morikawa et al. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 29, Morikawa et al. teaches the substrate as various materials such as glass and ceramic (paragraphs [0038], [0080]).
Regarding claim 30, Morikawa et al. teaches a Ti-Cr-O-N film on a substrate (abstract, Figure 12A). The ratio of the N atoms is defined between 0-13% (paragraphs [0010], [0014]), and Cr doped with N can be used (paragraphs [0083], [0093]-[0100]. Titanium oxide, TiO2 is used (paragraph [0007]). The crystal phase of the TiO2 can be rutile, anatase, or a combination of anatase and rutile (paragraphs [0040], [0058], [0101]). The film was produced with sputtering (paragraphs [0005],[0045], [0094], [0114]) Morikawa et al. does not teach the percentage of anatase to rutile.
However, Dadheech et al. teaches a TiO2 catalyst with a photocatalytic active material including greater than or equal to about 50% by volume anatase phase of TiO2 (paragraphs [0014], [0019]). Dadheech et al. teaches the anatase phase may exhibit a higher photocatalytic activity than rutile TiO2, and while the amount of anatase is desirably maximized, both anatase and rutile form of TiO2 may be present (paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and to have utilized the range of anatase TiO2 for the film taught by the Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Dadheech et al., to ensure maximum catalyst activity.
Regarding claim 32, Morikawa et al. teaches the amount N2 and an inert gas, like Ar is used for sputtering (paragraph [0045]), and a partial pressure of N2 set between 20-60% (paragraph [0046]). This would result in an Ar/N2 ratio of 5 to 1.6. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 34, Morikawa et al. teaches the titanium oxide layer, but is silent on the layer thickness.
However, Dadheech et al. teaches the TiO2 layer with an average thickness of less than or equal to about 50 nm, with the photocatalytic activity of the anatase increasing with increasing thickness of the catalyst, and the layer is not limited and may have a thickness above the amounts listed (paragraphs [0050], [0051]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Dadheech et al. and use the thickness of the TiO2 layer with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Dadheech et al., to increase the photocatalytic ability of the catalyst.
Claims 21 and 35, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (US 2003/0013607 A1) and Dadheech et al. (US 2018/ 0154345 A1) as applied to claims 16-20, 26-30, 32, 34 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 6355308 B1).
Regarding claim 21 and 35, Morikawa et al. does teach anatase crystallites, but does not teach the size of the crystallites.
However, Sato et al. teaches seed crystals TiO2 with a size of 1 to 1000 nm (paragraphs [0021], [0049]). The precipitation rate and uniformity of the photocatalytic film can be controlled by selecting the diameter of the seed particles. Anatase microparticles were used for the TiO2 (paragraph [0117]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Sato et al. and use the crystal size of TiO2 layer with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. as for the purpose, suggested by Sato et al., to control the precipitation rate and uniformity of the photocatalytic layer.
Claims 23-25, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (US 2003/0013607 A1) and Dadheech et al. (US 2018/0154345 A1) as applied to claims 16-20, 26-30, 32, 34 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0076342 A1).
Regarding claim 23 and 33, Morikawa et al. teaches a Ti-Cr-O-N film on a substrate (abstract, Figure 12A). The ratio of the N atoms is defined between 0-13% (paragraphs [0010], [0014]), and Cr doped with N can be used (paragraphs [0083], [0093]-[0100]. Morikawa et al. does not teach the thickness of the Cr layer.
However, Liu et al. teaches a thickness of different Cr components with a thickness of Cr in the range of 10-30 nm, CrNx (x = 0.9-1.5) in the range of 30-50 nm, and the thickness of CrNyOz (y = 0-0.1; z= 1.4-1.5) in the range of 40-60 nm (paragraph [0037]). The thickness of the layers is important for the overall optical characteristics of the coating (paragraph [0037]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Liu et al. and use the thickness of the chromium layer with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Liu et al., to ensure optimal optical characteristics of the composition.
Regarding claims 24, 25 and 31, Morikawa et al. teaches the ratio of N atoms between 0-13% (paragraphs [0010], [0014], [0053]). Morikawa et al. does not teach 15-25 at% of nitrogen or a depth of at least 10 nm.
However, Liu et al. teaches a chromium layer with possible Cr components including, CrNx (x = 0.9-1.5), which ranges from 19.5-28 at% nitrogen (paragraph [0037]). The thickness of this layer is 30-50 nm, and the thickness of the layers is important for the overall optical characteristics of the coating (paragraph [0037]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facia obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Liu et al. and use the at% of nitrogen and thickness of the layer with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Liu et al., to ensure optimal optical characteristics of the composition.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. (US 2003/0013607 A1) and Dadheech et al. (US 2018/ 0154345 A1) as applied to claims 16-20, 26-30, 32, 34 above, and further in view of Wachs (US 6683221 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Morikawa et al. teaches titanium oxide, TiO2 (paragraph [0007]). The crystal phase of the TiO2 can be rutile, anatase, or a combination of anatase and rutile (paragraphs [0040], [0058], [0101]). Morikawa et al. does not teach the anatase crystallites in the titanium oxide having a substructure.
However, Wachs teaches titania can be formed in the shape of pills, pellets, granules, rings, spheres and the like. The materials can be used in any configuration, shape, or size which exposes their surface (column 11, lines 19-38). Additionally, Wachs uses titania primarily (50-100 wt%) in the anatase form (column 8, lines 46-49).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morikawa et al. with Wachs and use the different shapes of the anatase titania with the composition taught by Morikawa et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Wachs, to ensure optimal surface exposure for the catalyst composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights