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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-14, Species A7 - Al2O3-Ta2O5-Al2O3-HfO2 (only applicable with respect to non-elected invention Group II), and Species B9 – a flexible electronic device (only applicable with respect to non-elected invention Group II) in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-44 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/2/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification (as filed) recites on page 3, at lines 16-18, “In an aspect of the invention, a method for forming a coating on a substrate using a molecular layer deposition process and atomic layer deposition, according to what is defined in independent claim 1;” and then on page 5, at lines 12-13, “In another aspect, a self-healing laminate coating is provided, according to what is defined in independent claim 14;” however, given that claim limitations and claim numbers may change during prosecution, the specification should not refer to specific claim numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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. The term “essentially porous” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially porous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Given the lack of guidance in the claims and specification, it is unclear as to how porous a material needs to be, or how nonporous a material can be, in order to be considered “essentially porous” as claimed, and hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Dependent claims 2-14 do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 4 is (further) 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the deposition layer or layers forming the inorganic film in step (ii)" in lines 1-2 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is (further) 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. Regarding claim 14, the phrase "and the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hossbach (Integration of molecular-layer-deposited aluminum alkoxide interlayers into inorganic nanolaminate barriers for encapsulation of organic electronics with improved stress resistance). As discussed in the prior office action, Hossbach discloses a method of producing a laminate by a hybrid atomic layer deposition (ALD)/molecular layer deposition (MLD) process wherein the resulting product is a coated substrate comprising at least one layer of aluminum alkoxide deposited by MLD having a low density of about 1.7 g/cc, which the Examiner takes the position is inherently “composed of essentially porous bulk of material” (especially given the lack of clarity thereof), and an inorganic nanolaminate of alternating layers of Al2O3 and TiO2 deposited by ALD (“inorganic film” as in instant claims 1-6; Entire document, particularly Abstract and IV. Summary and Conclusions). Hossbach specifically discloses that substrates were first coated with aluminum oxide prior to each MLD film deposition (as in instant claims 9-11) using 100 ALD cycles of a trimethylaluminum (TMA)-H2O process, wherein the ALD coating “covers the MLD film from the last run and creates a chemically similar starting surface for all processes,” and that the duration of purging after monoethylene glycol (MEG), as the second reactant in the MLD process, has significantly less influence on the mass gain per cycle than after TMA on account of “a diffusion of TMA molecules into the porous, polymer-like MLD films” (emphasis added) and a subsequent out-diffusion and desorption during the purging step (II. Experimental; and III. Results and Discussion, A. Process properties). Hence, given that the aluminum alkoxide layer deposited by MLD of Hossbach is “essentially porous” and would inherently contain “unbound, unreacted and/or partially reacted precursors” that are capable of entering into a “chemical interaction with harmful environmental species penetrated into the coating at defective sites thereof and seal said defective sites through formation of a sealing compound” as in the claimed invention, including “the harmful environmental species…and the like” of instant claim 14, the Examiner takes the position that Hossbach anticipates instant claims 1-6 and 14, particularly in light of the lack of clarity thereof (as discussed above) and especially given the disclosure of Hossbach with respect to aging of the coating in air (III. Results and Discussion, Sections B. Film Properties and D. Barrier integration; Fig. 14).
With respect to instant claim 8, Hossbach discloses that the MLD and ALD coating steps are repeated such that each barrier stack consisted of a 48 nm thick TiO2/Al2O3 inorganic nanolaminate intermitted by 0, 1, 2, or 3 MLD aluminum alkoxide layers with 12 nm thickness, each, providing barriers that were perfectly smooth and defect free after aging, providing water vapor barrier properties as shown in Fig. 15 (III. Results and Discussion, D. Barrier integration), thereby anticipating instant claim 8.
With respect to instant claims 9-11, as noted above, Hossbach discloses that substrates were first coated with aluminum oxide prior to each MLD film deposition using 100 ALD cycles of a TMA-H2O process, as in instant claim 9 (III. Results and Discussion, A. Process properties); and also discloses that “theoretical considerations suggest a substrate-enhanced growth of aluminum alkoxide MLD on an ALD aluminum oxide surface” (III. Results and Discussion, C. Initial growth) such that the initial ALD aluminum oxide layer also functions as a substrate pretreatment or “primer layer” as in instant claims 10-11, thereby anticipating the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 9-11.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (KR2013-0075122A, please refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS dated 4/2/2024 for the below cited sections). Cho discloses a moisture penetration preventing film (100) comprising a self-assembled layer (120) and an inorganic nanolaminate layer (130), and a manufacturing method thereof, wherein the self-assembled layer (120) formed by MLD and the inorganic nanolaminate layer (130) formed by ALD are alternately laminated on a substrate (110) (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001, 0005, 0008-0009, and 0016; as in instant claim 1). Cho discloses that the self-assembled layer (120) is formed by MLD using an organic material as recited in Paragraph 0018 such as octyltrichlorosilane (OTS), as utilized in the examples, which is reactive with water/moisture as well as hydroxyl groups formed on the surface of the substrate by an ozone pretreatment (Paragraphs 0022 and 0026-0027; as in instant claims 10-11); while the nanolaminate film (130) may be formed by stacking two or more kinds of inorganic materials that may be manufactured as thin films or sub-layers (132, 134), with specific examples thereof including Al2O3, ZrO2, ZnO, TiO2, HfO2, and CeO2 (Paragraphs 0016 and 0019-0020), and working examples comprising a stack of alternating Al2O3 and TiO2 sub-layers (as in instant claims 1-6; Examples). Cho discloses that the method steps of forming the MLD layer and the ALD layer may be repeated to obtain a predetermined thickness for a particular end use (as in instant claim 8), wherein the resulting moisture penetration preventing film has the effect that water vapor is not transmitted more than a structure composed of only the inorganic nanolaminate film due to the internal absorbent/desiccant effect allowing the MLD self-assembled layer to retain moisture (reading upon the claimed “wherein, in said at least one layer composed of essentially porous bulk of material, unbound, unreacted and/or partially reacted precursors center chemical interaction with harmful environmental species penetrated into the coating at defective sites thereof and seal said defective sites through formation of a sealing compound” as recited in instant claim 1 given that the MLD layer would inherently be “essentially porous” as claimed, especially given that water vapor molecules are retain by the MLD layer, and more particularly “wherein the harmful environmental species comprise any one of: water…and the like, originated from an environment surrounding the substrate(s) coated with the laminate coating and penetrated into the coating at the defective sites” as recited in instant claim 14; Paragraphs 0021 and 0024, Examples).
Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Cho anticipates instant claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, and 14.
With respect to instant claim 9, given that Cho discloses that the MLD and ALD process steps are repeated, as discussed above, such that a subsequent MLD layer is formed on a previously-deposited ALD layer by performing a step (ii) before a step (i), Cho anticipates instant claim 9.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahlf (US2018/0119279A1). Ahlf discloses a method of producing a barrier laminate on a substrate by repeating, at least twice, a sequence of steps comprising (a) depositing an inorganic layer by performing 3 to 150 cycles of an atomic layer deposition process (as in instant claims 1-3), and (b) depositing an organic layer by performing 1 to 3 cycles of a molecular layer deposition process (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005, 0014, and 0033; Examples, thus the claimed “step (ii)” is performed before the claimed “step (i)” as in instant claim 9); wherein the substrate may include a planarization layer applied before applying the laminate that serves “to better hold together the substrate and the laminate” (Paragraph 0047-0048; as in instant claims 10-11), and the method may include a step of applying a protective layer such as an epoxy resin layer on top of the barrier laminate to avoid damage to the laminate, e.g., by scratching (Paragraph 0050, “topmost layer” as in instant claim 12). Ahlf discloses that the ALD inorganic layer(s) can be chosen from a wide variety of compounds, preferably inorganic oxides with examples thereof as recited in Paragraph 0039, preferably Al2O3 as utilized in the examples (Paragraphs 0038-0039, Examples, as in instant claim 4); while the MLD organic layer(s) comprise(s) a nitrogen-containing compound, preferably a nitrogen-containing compound having nitrogen in an oxidation state of -3, and further comprising a second functional group(s) containing acidic hydrogens such as a second amine, a hydroxyl group or a thiol group (e.g., capable of hydrogen bonding with water molecules), with examples thereof as recited in Paragraphs 0024-0026, and given that such organic layer(s) applied by MLD would inherently be “essentially porous bulk of material [and] unbound, unreacted and/or partially reacted precursors enter chemical interaction with harmful environmental species penetrated into the coating at defective sites thereof and seal said defective sites through formation of a sealing compound” as recited in instant claim 1, especially in light of the lack of clarity thereof, and more particularly “wherein the harmful environmental species comprise any one of: water…and the like, originated from an environment surrounding the substrate(s) coated with the laminate coating and penetrated into the coating at the defective sites” as recited in instant claim 14, given that water molecules would inherently be retained by the MLD layer(s) due to hydrogen bonding (“chemical interaction”), the Examiner takes the position that Ahlf anticipates instant claims 1-4, 9-12, and 14.
With respect to instant claim 8, Ahlf discloses that in general, ALD “is a technique in which a series of self-limiting surface reactions are conducted which builds up conformal coatings of precise thickness depending on the number of self-limiting reactions performed”; and that “[i]f organic molecules are deposited in an ALD process, such a process is often referred to as molecular layer deposition process (MLD)” (Paragraph 0014); and given that Ahlf discloses that “the sequence comprising (a) and (b) is performed at least twice, preferably at least three times, more preferably at least five times, even more preferably at least 10 times, in particular at least 30 times, such as at least 50 times or at least 100 times” and usually not more than 1000 times (Paragraph 0033), Ahlf anticipates the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 8.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Cho are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference) and although Cho teaches that the nanolaminate film (130) may be formed by stacking two or more kinds of inorganic materials that may be manufactured as thin films or sub-layers (132, 134), with specific examples thereof including Al2O3, ZrO2, ZnO, TiO2, HfO2, and CeO2 (Paragraphs 0016 and 0019-0020), and working examples comprising a stack of alternating Al2O3 and TiO2 sub-layers (as in instant claims 1-6; Examples), Cho does not specifically teach that the nanolaminate film (130) as the claimed “inorganic film” includes sub-layers or deposition layers composed of Al2O3 alternating with sub-layers or deposition layers of HfO2 as instantly claimed. However, given that Cho clearly teaches that the inorganic nanolaminate film can be made of any 2 or more of the above oxides, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute HfO2 for TiO2 in the working examples thereby reading upon and/or suggesting the claimed inorganic film composed of Al2O3 deposition layers alternating with HfO2 deposition layers as instantly claimed. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 7 would have been obvious over the teachings of Cho given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlf as applied to claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14 above and further discussed below.
The teachings of Ahlf are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference) wherein it is again noted that Ahlf teaches that the inorganic layer, applied by performing 3 to 150 ALD cycles, is preferably formed from inorganic oxides (as in instant claims 1-4) with examples thereof recited in Paragraph 0039 including Al2O3 (as in instant claims 4-7) and ZrO2 (as in instant claims 4-6) which are preferred, as well as transition metal oxides other than the preferred ZrO2 such as TiO2, Ta2O5, and HfO2 (as in instant claims 4-7, with the latter particularly as in instant claim 7) and given that Ahlf teaches that the inorganic layers may be mixed (semi)metal oxides or may be formed from different (semi)metal-containing compounds (Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0033-0034, and 0038-0039), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of the inorganic (semi)metal oxides or combinations thereof for the inorganic layer(s) of the barrier laminate taught by Ahlf, provided as mixed oxides or as alternating layers as is typical in the art, as in instant claims 5-7, and hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 5-7 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ahlf given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claim 13, it is again noted that Ahlf teaches that the method may include a step of applying a protective layer such as an epoxy resin layer on top of the barrier laminate to avoid damage to the laminate, e.g. by scratching (Paragraph 0050), reading upon the claimed “topmost layer” of instant claim 12 as discussed above; and also teaches that “[i]t is further possible that the protective layer is an adhesive which e.g. connects the laminate to an electronic device” (Paragraph 0050), thereby also reading upon the claimed “topmost layer” of instant claim 12, and although Ahlf recites epoxy resin “for example”, Ahlf does not teach that the protective layer as the claimed “polymer film on/over the coating as a topmost layer” as in instant claim 12, “consists of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or polyurethane (PU)” as in instant claim 13. However, given that Ahlf does not limit the protective layer or protective adhesive to epoxy resin or any particular protective/adhesive polymer or resin, and broadly teaches that suitable polymers for the invention as a substrate material include polyurethanes and epoxy resins (Paragraph 0044), thereby suggesting a functional equivalence thereof; while suitable polymers for the planarization layer include epoxy and polyalkylsiloxanes (Paragraph 0047, encompassing the claimed PDMS), thereby similarly suggesting a functional equivalence thereof, particularly with respect to adhesion given that the planarization serves “to better hold together the substrate and the laminate” as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of the functionally equivalent polymers taught by Ahlf as being suitable for the invention, e.g., polyurethanes or polyalkylsiloxanes, as the protective layer, especially given that polyurethanes and/or polysiloxanes, in general, are known to provide protective and/or adhesive properties in the art. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 13 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ahlf given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US2016/0197292A1) discloses a substrate for an organic electronic device (OED) “having excellent durability by preventing interlayer delamination occurring due to internal stress in a structure in which an organic material and an inorganic material are mixed,” wherein the substrate comprises a flexible base film having an ALD inorganic layer and an MLD elastic layer alternately formed thereon, and the OED may further comprise a cover film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787