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 5/27/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-21 and 23 have been canceled. Claims 22 and 24-42 have been added and are the only remaining claims active for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 5/27/26, the 35 USC 102/103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
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 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.
Claims 22,24,25,28,29,30 and 33-42 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) and WO 2004/085701.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches a 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).
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the substrate to be a glass ribbon in a float glass manufacturing process.
Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) teaches forming an oxide such as manganese oxide on the surface of glass formed by the float process [0015].
WO 2004/085701 teaches a CVD process for the deposition of a coating comprising titanium oxide on the surface of a glass ribbon produced during a float glass production in which the substrate is contacted with titanium compound and carboxylate ester to form the coating.
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 glass ribbon formed in a float glass process as evidenced by Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
Regarding claim 22, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches 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 28 and 33, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) fails to teach the surface concentration
While Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718) is silent with respect to the concentration of manganese (MnOx film) to be 0.10ug/cm2 or less and the glass temperature to be in the range of 1100F-1400F 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.
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 claims 38 and 39, WO 2004/085701 teaches a CVD process for the deposition of a coating comprising titanium oxide on the surface of a glass ribbon produced during a float glass production in which the substrate is contacted with titanium compound and carboxylate ester to form the coating whereby ethyl acetate is a known oxygen precursor (claims 5 and 6).
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 26 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) and WO 2004/085701 in combination with Matsumoto et al. (2014/0183743).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 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) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 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 Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 in combination with Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 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) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 process to form a discontinuous film as evidenced by Matsumoto et al. (2011/0049718) with the expectation of producing the desired coating layer.
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 Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 in combination with Macfarlane et al. (2014/0034510).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 are incorporated here.
Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 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) in combination with Okahata et al. (2014/0302330) and WO 2004/085701 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 22 and 24-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that one of ordinary skill in the CVD of a coating on a glass ribbon on a float glass manufacturing process would not look to the combination would not look to Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) as it teaches coating discrete substrates in a controlled environment.
The Examiner disagrees. The references are all related to vapor deposition of glass substrates and whether these are discrete or in ribbon form would not preclude the CVD precursors in a continuous process from being utilized in a discrete process as one skilled in the art would understand the differences between the two processes and make the necessary adjustments to form the coating on the particular substrate whether it be discrete or continuous.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the case the references are all related to coating of glass substrates whether it be on discrete substrates in a static coating operation o in a continuous operation of a glass ribbon.
Applicant argued in relation to claim 24, Matsumoto et al. (9,245,847) teaches a post-mixing and not a pre-mixing of the gases prior to entering the chamber.
The Examiner disagrees. The claims are not commensurate in scope with the argument as the claim does not require pre-mixing prior to entering the chamber but the gaseous mixture is feed through the apparatus “before forming the manganese oxide coating” and can be mixed within the chamber prior to forming the manganese coating and still meet the claimed limitation. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights