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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 8/5/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 19-20 from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
The rejection of claims 2-3 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of the instant amendments to the claims.
All other rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirkpatrick (US 20200022247).
As to claim 1, Kirkpatrick discloses a method for coating a substrate comprising:
A method of forming a coating (paragraph 14, 32);
Electrically neutral particles form a source providing electrically neutral particles and ions of the particles are available to assist the deposition (figure 3: neutral beam 1314, from ion beam 1128 from ionizer 1122);
At least one electrode arranged in the direction of the particle flow of the coating material facing the particle flow to direct the ions away from the substrate (figure 3: deflection plate 1302 and 1304 for deflection of ions 1316 away from substrate).
As to claim 3 and 19, Kirkpatrick discloses the particle beam source at an angle of 0° with respect to the substrate surface normal (figure 3: showing perpendicular beam direction to substrate).
As to claim 4, Kirkpatrick discloses use of argon gas (paragraph 26, 50).
As to claim 5, Kirkpatrick discloses use of reactive gases (paragraph 26: oxygen and nitrogen gases).
As to claim 20, Kirkpatrick discloses the gas is a mixture of inert and reactive gases (paragraph 50: argon with nitrogen, carbon dixide, and/or oxygen).
As to claim 21, Kirkpatrick discloses an ionized gas source (paragraph 50; figure 1: ionizer 116 for gas from 1112; ionized gas is, by definition, plasma).
As to claim 22, Kirkpatrick discloses a beam reaching the substrate that is entirely neutral (paragraph 31).
Claim(s) 8-9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bois (US 4303694). Further evidence is provided by “Ion Composition of the Beam Plasma…” by Tuynkov (see PTO-892, reference not relied upon for the rejection but to provide further evidence of inherent nature of applied reference).
As to claim 8, Boise discloses a method of coating a substrate with coating material comprising:
Depositing coating material while using an assistance gas to assist the deposition (abstract: deposition of material of the target through evaporation – creation of a gas to be deposited);
The substrate is impinged on by electrons (figure 1: electron beam 11 formed by electron gun 4 and ‘deflected’ by magnet 12; although electrons are directed towards the crucible 14, some electrons will necessarily impact the substrates 3 as 100% perfect deflection is not achievable and some electrons will be accelerated towards the substrates by the evaporating material 16 [col 1 lines 35-37: problem of electron acceleration]; the electrons inherently decreasing the positive charge of the coating/substrate);
By a filament in a housing and at least one grid having a potential different relative to the filament at an opening in the housing (figure 1: filament 6 in gun housing 4 with grids 8 and 10 receiving different potentials from supplies 9 and 30).
As to the claim limitation of the ions from the assistance gas causing positive charging of the substrate, Bois, as discussed above, discloses evaporation of a target material by an electron beam for deposition onto the substrate. The cited reference article by Tyunkov discloses the inherent fact that an electron beam impinged on a target material creates primarily positively charged ions (abstract; page 7/24 figure 2: showing various positive ion species generated during different target vaporization processes with electron beams). Therefore, the process of Bois will necessarily create positive ions from the target material, the positive ions necessarily impressing the same positive charge onto the substrate during deposition.
As to claim 9, Bois discloses electron beam evaporation for deposition (abstract; col 1 lines 55-65: electron beam evaporation of a target for deposition).
As to claim 14, Bois discloses use of an electron beam for evaporation of the deposition material (abstract; claim 1: vacuum evaporation by bombarding with electron beam).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knapp (US 4303694).
As to claim 15, Knapp discloses an optical filter with thin layers formed by techniques including electron beam evaporation (abstract; paragraph 13).
It should be noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself beyond any structural limitations indicated. However, as discussed above, Knapp discloses knowledge in the art of formation of an optical device by electron beam evaporation techniques. It should also be noted that the electron beam technique will necessarily create both ions and neutral species and over time, any ionized species will naturally return to their ground state. Thus, at a given point in time, the substrate will inherently contain more neutral particles – and eventually solely neutral particles.
As to claim 16, Knapp discloses oxide layers (paragraph 16).
As to claims 17-18, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself beyond any structural limitations indicated. However, as discussed above, Knapp discloses knowledge in the art of formation of an optical device by electron beam evaporation and ion beam deposition techniques. Therefore, its films would have the desired thicknesses and any product would contain non-ionized layers as ions naturally return to their ground state without continuous energy application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick.
As to claim 2, Kirkpatrick discloses the neutral beam has an energy of 1 to a few thousandof eV (paragraph 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a beam with 50-500eV as this range is entirely within the range of Kirkpatrick and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize selection of the precise beam strength would rely on the materials involved and intended results.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (EP 0061906 A1).
As to claim 6-7, Kirkpatrick discloses a neutral beam provided to a substrate, but is silent as a substrate that is conductive and provided a voltage with an electrode under the substrate.
Inoue discloses a deposition method (abstract) in which the deposition is assisted by a neutral beam provided an electrode between the beam source and substrate (figure 1: beam source 5, electrodes 18-19). Inoue also disclose knowledge in the art a conductive substrate with power provided to an underlying electrode to obtain the desired corrosion resistant film (page 12: obtaining hard, corrosion resistant films; figure 1: power 13 to substrate support 3; pages 19-20: exemplary tantalum substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate and power of Inoue, in the method of Kirkpatrick, because this allows for generation of corrosion resistant films.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (US 20020093732) in view of Kirkpatrick.
As to claim 10, Knapp discloses knowledge in the art of optical filters in which thin films are deposited by techniques including ion beam depositions (abstract; paragraph 13).
Knapp, while disclosing various deposition techniques to form the thin films including ion beam deposition, is silent as to a neutral beam deposition.
Kirkpatrick discloses knowledge in the art of an ion and neutral beam deposition technique (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deposition method of forming thin films, as disclosed by Kirkpatrick, to form thin films in the device of Knapp to obtain a device with the required properties from its component films.
It should also be noted that deposition technique will necessarily create both ions and neutral species and over time, any ionized species will naturally return to their ground state. Thus, at a given point in time, the substrate will inherently contain more neutral particles – and eventually solely neutral particles.
It should be noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself beyond any structural limitations indicated. However, as discussed above, Knapp in view of Kirkpatrick discloses knowledge in the art of formation of an optical device by the method of claim 1.
As to claim 11, Knapp discloses oxide layers (paragraph 16).
As to claim 12-13, Knapp discloses knowledge in the art of forming the filter by multiple alternating layers (paragraph 38). As discussed above, Knapp in view of Kirkpatrick discloses knowledge in the art of depositing layers by ion beam and/or neutral beam deposition techniques and therefore would have the same resulting properties as required by the instant claims. Additionally, the layers would be formed to the desired thicknesses and any product would contain non-ionized layers as ions naturally return to their ground state without continuous energy application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 19-20 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8, 10, 15, etc. are not found persuasive as it is believed that the previously applied references teach the requisite newly added claim limitations, as evidenced by the Tyunkov article.
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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
