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
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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) 1-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facchetti (US 20150206957) in view of Grego (US 20140080729) and Wang (Wang, In-Situ Study of Dynamics of Refractive Index Changes in Silicon Devices Induced by UV-light Irradiation, IEEE Photonics Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, June 17, 2022, pg. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 1, 9, 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 UV 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 sensor arrays ([0003]). Facchetti does 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]). Grego teaches ultraviolet lithography, i.e. UV-curing first regions of the film and not UV-curing second regions of the film ([0051]). 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 waveguide with a diffractive grating, as suggested by Grego, because it is a known application of metal oxide 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 Facchetti in an application as discussed by Grego.
Grego teaches a desirable refractive index range ([0012]). The combined references are silent as to the change in refractive index with UV curing and heating; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine a suitable change. Wang teaches refractive index changes depending on UV light energy, UV exposure time, heating temperature and duration, and film constituents (I. Introduction 2nd para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the process conditions to achieve an optimum refractive index change with UV curing and heating, as suggested by Wang, in order to achieve a waveguide and diffraction grating having cured regions with a desirable refractive index and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed refractive index change.
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]).
Regarding Claim 10, Grego teaches the diffraction grating formed by nanoimprint lithography ([0051]), 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), Grego (US 20140080729), and Wang (Wang, In-Situ Study of Dynamics of Refractive Index Changes in Silicon Devices Induced by UV-light Irradiation, IEEE Photonics Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, June 17, 2022, pg. 1-5) as applied to claims 1-10 and 18-19 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 Facchetti in an application as discussed by Gunn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract and the prior art rejection over Facchetti alone and Facchetti in view of Grego have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Facchetti fails to disclose exposing first regions to radiation and not exposing second regions to radiation. In response to applicant’s argument, this limitation is suggested by Grego as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant argues Facchetti fails to disclose exposing the film to one or more of heat or vacuum to stabilize the film, wherein the first regions of the film and the second regions of the film have a refractive index difference An > 0.04, and An does not change further after heating. In response to applicant’s argument, Facchetti teaches exposing the film to heat and UV radiation to stabilize the film (annealing, [0056]). Furthermore, Facchetti (and the combination of references) does not teach the refractive index changes further after heating. As discussed in the prior art rejection, Wang discloses changes to refractive index induced by UV-light irradiation which provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the UV-irradiation of the combined references to achieve desirable refractive index properties in the final product.
Applicant argues Grego fails to cure the deficiencies of Facchetti because Grego fails to disclose at least "exposing the film to one or more of heat or vacuum to stabilize the film, wherein the first regions of the film and the second regions of the film have a refractive index difference An > 0.04, and An does not change further after heating". In response to applicant’s argument, these limitations are taught by Facchetti and Wang as discussed above.
Applicant argues Wang fails to cure the deficiencies of Facchetti and Grego because Wang discloses changes to refractive index induced by UV-light irradiation is a reversible process. Applicant argues Wang does not disclose heating a film to stabilize the film. In response to applicant’s argument, Facchetti teaches exposing the film to heat and UV radiation to stabilize the film (annealing, [0056]). Furthermore, Facchetti (and the combination of references) does not teach the refractive index changes further after heating.
Applicant argues Gunn fails to cure the deficiencies; however, this is unconvincing as discussed above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights