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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites a reactive gas flow rate of 2000-5000 sccm per linear meter of plasma source length. However, claim 10 recites a reactive gas flow of 125-750 sccm per linear meter of plasma source length. Claim 13 thus recites a range outside of the range recited in claim 10 and therefore fails to further limit the independent claim.
Claim 14 recites a “total flow rate of each precursor” is 10-500 sccm. However, claim 10 recites a precursor gas flow of 500-2500 sccm. How can the precursor gas flow be 500-2500 sccm if the total flow rate of the precursors is only 10-500 sccm? Claim 14 thus fails to further limit the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePauw (US 5,709,930).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, DePauw discloses a glass substrate having at least one coating (col. 3, lines 17-20), including a protective coating (col. 4, lines 25-31). The protective coating is a material selected from oxides or oxynitrides of silicon and contains no other components other than a dopant (col. 3, lines 46-47). Up to 15% wt, preferably up to 10% wt, of the coating is the dopant (col. 3, lines 47-52). For silicon oxide, this corresponds to an atomic percent of up to 25%, preferably up to 17%. Thus at least 85% by weight of the coating, preferably at least 90%, is silicon oxide. The dopant is one of aluminum, nickel, boron, phosphorus, titanium, or zirconium (col. 3, lines 52-55). As the dopant may include titanium or zirconium, this is construed to indicate the protective coating contains up to 15% by weight of titanium oxide or zirconium oxide. DePauw expressly teaches examples using boron as a dopant (see col. 4, lines 15-18). The prior art range overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Hydroxy groups present on the surface of silicon oxide are presumed to be inherent, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2, DePauw does not teach the presence of carbon in the protective coating (see col. 3, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 3, since the protective coating of DePauw is substantially the same as that claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed FTIR absorbance peak area ratio for -OH stretching vibrations to Si-O-Si stretching vibrations, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, DePauw teaches the protective coating has a thickness of 1-10 nm (col. 2, lines 25-26). DePauw does not teach the claimed thickness. However, DePauw teaches the thickness of the coating may be increased and is limited only by the optical properties of the final product (col. 3, lines 27-29). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a thicker coating and thereby obtain better protective qualities for the underlying glass substrate, depending on the desired properties of the coated glass.
Regarding claim 5, DePauw teaches the protective layer has a refractive index of less than 1.7, preferably less than 1.5 (col. 2, lines 30-44). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 9, DePauw teaches the glass substrate coating may be an anti-solar (construed to be solar control) panel (col. 8, lines 47-49), low emissivity coating (col. 7, line 13), or a reflective coating (col. 4, lines 29-31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed method for making a protective boron-doped silicon oxide layer on a glass substrate comprising 4%-12% atomic boron. DePauw teaches vacuum sputtering of the silicon oxide layer and does not teach or suggest the linear hollow-cathode type plasma source, introduction of an oxygen-containing reactive gas at the claimed flow rate, application of electric power based on plasma source length, or injection of a precursor gas flow rate.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights