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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 03/30/2026 cancelling claims 1, 2 and 9-11, amending claims and adding new claims 15 and 16 has been acknowledged.
Currently claims 5, 6, 8 and 13-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2 and 9-11 is moot since all these claims were canceled by the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
A) Applicant argues that Komai teaches passive optics and there is no teaching to use SrB4O7 as a plasma bulb/envelope.
b) Applicant further argues that the Office fails to rationale is conclusory because it fails to articulate reasoning with some rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
c) Applicant also argues that Komai does not teach ‘broadband deep-UV transmissivity’ for a lamp envelope; only discrete laser-line data.”
d) Applicant argues that “Komai is silent on sealing electrodes, plasma bombardment, compatibility with mercury/rare gas fill.”
e) Applicant argues that “Baaten does not motivate replacing its ‘conventional tubular glass’ with Komai’s laser-optics glass.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the secondary reference need not disclose the entire claimed invention. It must supply the missing teachings-here, the material and relevant properties. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19; MPEP §2144. Komai does exactly that. It teaches SrB4O7 optical glass with (i) deep-UV and “vacuum ultraviolet region” transmittance (Fig. 2; [0011]), (ii) high light-damage threshold ([0012]), (iii)resistance to color centers/clouding under prolonged irradiation ([0013]), (iv) no hygroscopicity, “arbitrary size”, and “excellent processibility” ([0007]). The art historically uses the same families of materials (synthetic silica/fused quartz, MgF2, CaF2) for both laser windows and lamp envelopes. Komai explicitly criticizes those materials for short-wavelength service and proposes SrB4O7 glass as a superior alternative. A POSITA choosing an envelope for a deep-UV/vacuum-UV lamp would naturally consider laser-window optical glasses with the required spectral and durability properties. That is routine engineering in the same field of endeavor. See MPEP § 2141.01(a); § 2144.06. Further, Baaten itself discloses strontium tetraborate (SrB4O7:Eu2+) as a luminescent material within the lamp (col. 2, lines 26–36; col. 3, lines 1–28), evidencing chemical compatibility of strontium tetraborate compounds with mercury/rare-gas discharge environments, reinforcing the reasonable expectation of success when using an SrB4O7 glass envelope.
In response to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the motivation is expressly articulated: improve short-wavelength (deep-UV and vacuum-UV) transmission and resist photodarkening/color centers/clouding in a UV lamp envelope. Komai provides the performance data and qualitative teachings that SrB4O7 glass delivers those benefits (Fig. 2; [0011]–[0014]). Baaten provides the lamp envelope structure/context. This fits multiple recognized KSR rationales: simple substitution of one known element for another; combining prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results; and, at minimum, “obvious to try” among a finite set of identified, predictable solutions (UV-transmissive glasses), particularly where Komai explains why SrB4O7 solves known problems of the conventional choices. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–19; MPEP § 2143.
In response to argument (c), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the claims recite a property of the envelope glass (“transmissive of broadband deep ultraviolet light” and/or “broadband vacuum ultraviolet light”), not additional structure. Komai’s Fig. 2 is expressly titled “transmittance in the vacuum ultraviolet region,” and the text reports good transmission at multiple deep-UV wavelengths (248 nm, 266 nm, 308 nm, 355 nm) ([0011]). Glass transmission is characteristically broadband over a window; the plotted/specific points are representative data on a continuous spectral curve. Thus, the claimed “broadband” transmissivity is either taught by the spectrum or is inherent to SrB4O7 glass once selected as the envelope material. See In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255; MPEP § 2112. To the extent “broadband” is viewed as intended use, it does not impose structural differences beyond selecting the material having the known spectral window; that selection is provided by Komai and applied to Baaten’s envelope.
In response to argument (d), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the claims do not recite any particular sealing geometry, coefficient-of-thermal-expansion match, or other structural limitations directed to sealing or plasma-bombardment mitigation. They recite only the material of the envelope (strontium tetraborate) and its optical property (broadband DUV/VUV transmissivity). Komai teaches “excellent processability,” “manufactured in an arbitrary size,” and “no hygroscopicity” ([0007]), which are pertinent to fabricating lamp envelopes and ensuring environmental durability. A POSITA familiar with lamp manufacturing would regard choosing a glass with known melt/process characteristics as a routine engineering task. See MPEP § 2144 (routine optimization/obviousness of features that can be varied). Further, Applicant offers no evidence of unexpected incompatibility of SrB4O7 glass with lamp sealing or operation, nor secondary considerations. In the absence of such evidence, routine material substitution based on the art’s teachings remains obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06.
In response to argument (e), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that Baaten establishes the lamp/envelope context. The motivation to replace the conventional glass with SrB4O7 comes from Komai’s explicit identification of known problems with traditional UV glasses (color centers, clouding) and its solution—SrB4O7 glass with better deep-UV/vacuum-UV transmission and durability ([0003]–[0004], [0011]–[0014]). That is a proper cross-reference motivation within analogous art. See MPEP § 2141.01(a); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19.
Therefore, because Applicant has not identified any structural distinction between the claimed articles and the combination of Baaten and Komai, nor provided evidence of unexpected results or teaching away, the articulated KSR-compliant rationale—substituting Baaten’s conventional glass envelope with Komai’s SrB4O7 glass to improve short-wavelength/VUV transmission and radiation durability—establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
The §103 rejection is therefore proper and maintained,
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baaten et al., (hereinafter Baaten), USPAT 5,216,323 in view of Komai et al., (hereinafter Komai), JP 1998284793.
As to claim 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14, Baaten discloses a broadband ultraviolet lamp comprising: a plasma bulb (Batten teaches and discloses a tubular discharge vessel containing mercury and a rare gas and forming a lamp/plasma envelope and depicts electrodes and discharge path inside the discharge vessel (abstract; col. 2, lines 12-14; 56-60). Thus the structural concept of a broadband ultraviolet lamp having a plasma bulb (a tabular discharge vessel/envelope) is taught by Batten).
Baaten does not explicitly disclose that the plasma bulb is formed from strontium tetraborate wherein the strontium tetraborate is transmissive of broadband deep ultraviolet light and broadband vacuum ultraviolet light.
However, Komai from the same file of endeavor discloses ([0001], [0002], [0005]- [0007], [0011] - [0014]; Figs. 1 and 2) Sr1−xBaxB4O7 glass and describes producing a processing the x = 0 composition, SrB4O7 (strontium tetraborate), into optical elements. Example 1 of Komai explicitly disclose manufacturing glass and “A 30 mm * 30 mm * 1 mm square window material 11 and a 20 mm diameter convex lens material 12 were manufactured. Komai thus discloses making optical parts from strontium tetraborate glass and recommends its use as optical elements in short-wavelength applications (window material, lens material, attenuator material, beam splitter material, laser cavity optics material, beam shaping optic material, etc). Thus, the teaching of Komai would have suggested one of ordinary skill in the art to fabricate optical components for UV lamps that SrB4O7 could be used as an envelope/bulb material (i.e., at least a portion of the plasma bulb from strontium tetraborate). Further, Komai discloses favorable UV and vacuum-UV transmittance for Sr1−xBaxB4O7 glass, and the comparative evaluation specifically states, “ As is clear from Fig. 2, the transmission is good at wavelength of XeCl (308 nm) and KrF (248 nm) of the excimer laser.” Komai also emphasizes that SrB4O7 resists color-center formation and clouding (“even after irradiation for 100 hours, the SrB4O7 glass of Example 1 …were not colored”) -properties critical for materials used in deep-UV and vacuum-UV lamp environments.
Batten teaches constructing lamps that tailor, transmit, and emit UV radiation through selection and application of inner layers and materials. Thus combining that practice with Komai’s explicit disclosure that SrB4O7 glass has a high optical damage threshold and the transmittance is good at the wavelength of XeCl (308 nm) and KrF (248 nm) shows that POSITA would have expected SrB4O7 to be transmissive in the deep-UV and extend into vacuum-UV band uses for high-power lamps.
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 the plasma bulb of Baaten with strontium tetraborate wherein the strontium tetraborate is transmissive of broadband deep ultraviolet light and broadband vacuum ultraviolet light for the advantage of resisting photodarkening/color centers under intense UV radiation and have suitable thermal/mechanical properties for plasma operation. Further the substitution is a routine design choice supported by Komai’s explicit manufacturing examples and by the Batten’s teaching of select appropriate transmissive materials for plasma bulbs.
Accordingly, claims 5, 6, 8 13 and 14 would have at least been obvious.
As to claims 15 and 16, Baaten discloses a laser sustained light source (Batten discloses a low pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp comprising a tabular discharge vessel containing mercury and rare gas, with electrodes to maintain a plasma discharge (col. 2, lines 12-20; Fig. 1a, 1b). While Batten’s discloses excitation source is electrical, the reference teaches the general structure of a plasma light source. A “laser sustained light source” is an obvious variant of a plasma light source in which the plasma is sustained by laser energy rather than solely by electrical discharge. The basic plasma containment and optical transmission requirements are same) comprising: a plasma bulb (“closed tubular glass discharge vessel” functioning as the plasma bulb/envelope; col. 2, lines 12-20; Figs. 1a, 1b).
Baaten doesn’t explicitly disclose one or more lasers configured to generate one or more laser beams and the plasma bulb formed from strontium tetraborate, where in the strontium tetraborate is transmissive of broadband vacuum ultraviolet light/broadband deep vacuum ultraviolet light and the one or more laser beams (please see the rationale above regarding why the limitations of “plasma bulb is formed from strontium tetraborate wherein the strontium tetraborate is transmissive of broadband deep ultraviolet light and broadband vacuum ultraviolet light would be obvious).
The limitation still lacking is that ‘one or more lasers configured to generate one or more laser beams’ and ‘the strontium tetraborate is transmissive to the one or more laser beams’.
Komai discloses optical materials (including SrB4O7) for use in laser optical paths (windows, lenses, beam splitters, laser cavity optics) for short-wavelength lasers such as excimer lasers ( 248 KrF, 308 nm XeCl) and Nd:YAG harmonics (266 nm, 355 nm) ([0001], [0005]-[0007], [0011]). Further the optical components discloses (made from SrB4O7 ) are specifically intended for use in laser beam paths for short-wavelength lasers, establishing that SrB4O7 transmits the laser beams used to excite the plasma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or supplemental Baaten’s electrical excitation with laser excitation to sustain or enhance the plasma, as laser-sustained plasma sources were known in the art for generating high-intensity, broadband optical output. Komai’s teachings SrB4O7 in laser optical paths demonstrate compatibility of the material with high-power laser irradiation, making it suitable for a laser-sustained plasma bulb.
Note: The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights