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 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the surface normal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation 50ev – 500eV, and the claim also recites 75eV -300eV (and 100eV – 200eV) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 3 and 19 recites the broad recitation up to 60°, and the claim also recites up to 45° (and up to 30°) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 is rejected for its dependence upon claim 19.
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) 1-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (EP 0061906 A1).
As to claim 1, Inoue discloses a method for coating a substrate with at least one coating comprising:
Deposition a coating on the substrate (abstract: a method including plating material on a substrate/workpiece);
Assisting the deposition with electrically neutral particles (abstract: applying neutral beams to the substrate; figures 1-2: beam sources 5-6 and 41-45);
At least one electrode is arranged in a direction of a particle flow of coating material on the side of the substrate facing the particle flow (figure 1: electrodes 18 and 19 between beam sources and workpiece/substrate 2; figure 2: powered coil/electrode 98 between beam sources 41-45 and workpiece/substrate 2).
As to claim 2, Inoue discloses the beam having an energy of 1-1000 eV (page 13 line 10: beam energy for deposition/plating; pages 19-20 exemplary beam energies including 500, 100 and 30 eV).
As to claim 3 and 19, Inoue discloses the particle beam source at an angle of up to 60° to the substrate surface normal (figure 2: beam sources at 0° [central source 43] and further sources at low angles [sources 41-42 and 44-45, illustrated at under 45° to substrate surface normal).
As to claim 4, Inoue discloses the use of noble gases for deposition assistance (page 19, line 10: use of argon in the beam source).
As to claim 5 and 20, Inoue discloses additional use of reactive materials within the beam source (pages 19-20: example with argon beam, tantalum and carbon beam reaction to form TaC layer).
As to claim 6, Inoue discloses a conductive substrate and voltage applied to the substrate (figure 1: power source 13 supplied to substrate 2 via support 3; pages 19-20: tantalum [conductive material] substrate example).
As to claim 7, Inoue discloses an electrode on the opposite side of the substrate with respect to a particle flow (figure 1: substrate support 3 on opposite side of substrate 2 with respect to flow from beam sources, power source 13 to support 3).
Claim(s) 8-9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bois (US 4303694)
As to claim 8, Boise discloses a method of coating a substrate with coating material comprising:
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]);
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 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.
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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (US 20020093732) in view of Inoue.
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.
Inoue discloses knowledge in the art of an ion and neutral beam deposition technique to control the properties of the film formed (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 Inoue, to form thin films in the device of Knapp to obtain a device with the required properties from its component films.
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 Inoue 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 Inoue 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794