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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/8/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facchetti (US 20150206957) in view of Morita (JP 2016109983A). A machine translation of Morita is provided as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 1 and 18-19, Facchetti teaches a method for forming a titanium-containing oxide film by liquid-phase deposition (abstract, [0042]), the method comprising: coating a substrate with a precursor solution to form a film ([0043]-[0052]); and exposing the film to heat and radiation to stabilize the film (annealing, [0056]).
Facchetti teaches the solution can include water ([0042]), titanium ions (transition metal salt, [0072]), one or more other metal ions ([0072]), a photolyzable and/or pyrolyzable ligand (anions, nitrates, [0045]), and an acid (nitric acid, [0045]). Facchetti does not explicitly teach a single embodiment including this composition; however, Facchetti teaches they are all suitable components for use in the coating composition. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of the components of Facchetti, including the claimed components, because Facchetti teaches they are all suitable for use in the composition and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the film of Facchetti with any combination of the taught components.
Facchetti teaches the invention useful in applications of optical devices ([0094]) and sensor arrays ([0003]). Facchetti does not explicitly teach a diffraction grating; however, Morita teaches optical elements including diffraction gratings with optically transparent substrates and metal oxide coatings with similar compositions to those of Facchetti, including titania with photosensitive compounds (pg. 1 last 2 para.; pages 9-10 Coating Solutions 1-7). Morita teaches exposing selective regions of the film to laser irradiation with a subsequent step of curing by UV radiation (pg. 12 Example 1). Morita teaches the claimed difference in refractive index (pg. 8 10th para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the application of Facchetti to be a diffractive grating, as suggested by Morita, because it is a known application of metal oxide films in optical devices of the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the low-temperature fabrication of Facchetti in an application as discussed by Morita.
Facchetti teaches conventional heat treatment, UV radiation, and laser radiation all suitable for annealing the film ([0011]). The combined references do not explicitly teach selective treatment of regions by UV radiation and subsequent curing by heat treatment; however, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the selective region and overall heat treatments of the combined references, to be any of the taught heating methods because Facchetti teaches they are all equivalents known for the same purpose and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the optical element of the combined references with any of the taught heat treatments.
Morita teaches the laser treated region has a higher percentage of nanoparticles than the second region (abstract). The combined references are silent as to the change in density with the selective heat treatment; however, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With regard to the density limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed method and materials, so the claimed density relating to the method and materials are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
The combined references do not teach the refractive index changes further after heating.
Regarding Claim 2, Facchetti teaches two or more metal salts including titanium chloride (transition metal salt, chlorides, [0072]), lanthanum chloride (lanthanide metal salt, chlorides, [0072]), and one or more of bismuth chloride, tin chloride, or antimony chloride (Group 14 and 15 metal salt, chlorides, [0072]).
Regarding Claim 3, Facchetti teaches nitric acid ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, Facchetti teaches a nitrate ion ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 5, Facchetti teaches UV curing the film ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 6, Facchetti teaches wherein exposing the film to heat comprises annealing at a temperature of less than or about 350 C ([0056]) and UV curing ([0011]). Facchetti does not explicitly teach the order of annealing and UV curing. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Facchetti to include any order of annealing and UV curing, as suggested by the reference, because Facchetti teaches they are both suitable for use with the invention and selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the annealing temperature of Facchetti to be any temperature suggested by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Facchetti teaches they are all suitable temperatures for use with the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the film of Facchetti at any of the taught temperatures.
Regarding Claim 7, Facchetti teaches annealing at a temperature of less than or about 350 C ([0056]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the annealing temperature of Facchetti to be any temperature suggested by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Facchetti teaches they are all suitable temperatures for use with the claimed invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the film of Facchetti at any of the taught temperatures.
Regarding Claim 8, Facchetti teaches diols ([0046]).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facchetti (US 20150206957) and Morita (JP 2016109983A) as applied to claims 1-8 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Grego (US 20140080729).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined references do not explicitly teach a waveguide; however, Grego teaches optical sensing devices including an optically transparent substrate with a waveguide coating wherein the waveguide includes metal oxides, such as titania ([0012-0014]). Grego teaches a diffractive grating formed on the waveguide ([0014]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the application of the combined references to be a waveguide with a diffractive grating, as suggested by Grego, because it is a known application of metal oxide diffractive grating films in sensors of the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the low-temperature fabrication of the combined references in an application as discussed by Grego.
Regarding Claim 10, Morita teaches the laser forms a pattern (pg. 2 9th para.), i.e. imprinting a pattern into the film before exposing the film to heat.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facchetti (US 20150206957), Morita (JP 2016109983A), and Grego (US 20140080729), as applied to claims 9-10 above, and further in view of Gunn (US 6993236).
Regarding Claim 11, Facchetti teaches applications in layers of a thin-film transistor ([0012]) and sensors ([0003]). Grego suggests applications in layers of a waveguide and diffractive grating as discussed above. Grego teaches in typical implementations the waveguide is a dielectric slab ([0048]). The combined references do not explicitly teach the film being in a waveguide optical element and a passivation layer in a thin-film transistor; however, Gunn teaches the dielectric materials used in the fabrication of the wave guide may include many dielectric elements used in the fabrication of the transistor, including passivation layers (col. 4 ln. 65-col. 5 ln. 3). Gunn teaches layers of the waveguide and transistor can be formed at the same time of the same dielectric material on the same substrate (col. 5 ln. 20-30). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the application of the combined references to be a combination of waveguide and transistor elements, as suggested by Gunn, because it is a known application of metal oxide films in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the low-temperature fabrication of the combined references in an application as discussed by Gunn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Wang reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Wang for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's other arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited combination of reference fails to disclose the newly claimed element of amended claims 1 and 18. Applicant argues Facchetti fails to disclose the newly claimed element of amended claims 1 and 18. Applicant argues Grego and Gunn fail to cure the deficiencies. In response to applicant’s argument, Morita teaches the claimed difference in refractive index (pg. 8 10th para.). Morita teaches the laser treated region has a higher percentage of nanoparticles than the second region (abstract). While the combined references are silent as to the change in density with the selective heat treatment, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed method and materials, so the claimed density relating to the method and materials are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
