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 .
The amendment filed 8/8/24 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-21 have been canceled. Claims 22-42 have been added and are the only remaining claims active for prosecution thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
OR
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 22,24,25,29,30,34-37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) or in the alternative rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847).
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches aa method of manufacturing semiconductor device for forming metal element-containing layer on insulating layer whereby a metal oxide layer is formed on the insulating layer (abstract). Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches forming as a Manganese oxide layer (MnOx) using a Mn precursor and an oxygen reactive gas whereby the manganese precursor includes Cp2Mn, EtCp2Mn, CpMnCO3, etc. and the oxygen gas include O2 (molecular oxygen) as well as organic oxygen compounds and supplying these gases to a processing chamber and reacting at the surface of the substrate after (col. 8, line 5 – col. 10, line 10). Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches the substrate to include glass (col. 17, lines 38-42).
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches the claimed Mn precursors, oxygen precursors as well as the substrate and hence meets the definition of a 35 USC 102 rejection, however, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847), the Mn precursor, oxygen precursor and the glass substrate are recited in a listing/group and the suggestion to select the claimed elements would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art to produce the desired results absent a showing of criticality thereof the particular claimed elements.
Regarding claim 24, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches feeding the gases to the processing chamber before forming the manganese oxide film (col. 10, 3-10).
Regarding claim 25, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches atmospheric pressure as teaches almost air pressure as well as a vacuum state (col. 20, lines 4-20).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches forming the MnO film on a SiO interlayer (col. 3, line 54 – col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 34, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches the MnO is pyrolytic as it is formed by pyrolysis decomposition of precursors (col. 8, lines 43-65).
Regarding claims 35-37, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) tecahes the organic oxygen containing compound to include esters which would be inclusive of alky groups with hydrogen (col. 9, lines 7-15 and col. 15, lines 23-31).
Regarding claim 40, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches the oxygen reactive gas can include O2 (molecular oxygen) (col. 9, lines 7-15 and col. 15, lines 23-31).
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches (methylcyclopentadienyl) manganese (I) tricarbonyl or derivatives (col. 8, lines 43-65).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the substrate to be float glass.
Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) teaches forming an oxide such as manganese oxide on the surface of glass formed by the float process [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) process to form the manganese oxide film on a surface of fluorine tin oxide as evidenced by Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Matsumoto et al. (2014/0183743).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the MnOx film to be continuous.
Matsumoto et al. (2014/0183743) teaches forming manganese metal film whereby the MnO film is a continuous thin film [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) process to form a continuous film as evidenced by Matsumoto et al. (2014/0183743) with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the MnOx film to be discontinuous.
Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718) teaches forming manganese film whereby the MnO film is a discontinuous thin film [0189].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) process to form a discontinuous film as evidenced by Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718) with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the surface concentration MnOx film to be 0.10ug/cm2 or less and the glass temperature to be in the range of 1100F-1400F.
While Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718) is silent with respect to the concentration of manganese as well as teaching lower processing temperatures, the Examiner takes the position that the manganese concentration as well as the temperatures are a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art of forming manganese films and would be within the skill to optimize these absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Macfarlane et al. (2014/0034510).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the interlayer to be tin oxide or fluorine doped tin oxide.
Macfarlane et al. (2014/0034510) teaches forming manganese oxide on the surface of fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO) [0115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) process to form the manganese oxide film on a surface of fluorine tin oxide as evidenced by Macfarlane et al. (2014/0034510) with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Strickler (9,187,825).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the oxygen containing compound to include ethyl acetate.
Strickler (9,187,825) teaches forming metal oxide films whereby the oxygen containing compound comprises ethyl acetate (claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) process to form the manganese oxide film by utilizing ethyl acetate as the organic oxygen containing precursor as evidenced by Strickler (9,187,825) with the expectation of producing the desired MnO coating layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712