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 § 102
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 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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (CN 109564867).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses a nano-patterned glass (nano-pattern of 100, Fig. 2; page 17, para [0062]; page 37, para [0136]) comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig. 2; page 37, para [0136]) selected from a window of an optical device (page 3, para [0007]; page 5, para [0014]); and
a nano-pattern (nano-pattern defined by W1 and h1, Fig. 2; page 17, para [0062]) formed on a surface of the substrate (100, Fig. 2) by a wet etching method (page 11, para [0041]), the nano-pattern including a plurality of nanoscale surface protrusions (protrusions defined by W1 and h1, Fig. 2; page 17, para [0062]),
wherein each of the nanoscale surface protrusions have a protrusion thickness measured from a base surface of the substrate (protrusion thickness W1, Fig. 2; page 17, para [0062]) and a protrusion depth measured from a top surface of the protrusion (protrusion depth (h1, Fig. 2; page 17, para [0062]), and
wherein the protrusion thickness of each protrusion is greater than the protrusion depth of the protrusion (protrusion thickness W1 is greater than the protrusion depth h1, Fig. 2; when W1=40 nm and h1=30 nm; page 17, para [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a nano-patterned glass with all the limitations of claim 19 above and further discloses
wherein the protrusion thickness (W1, Fig. 2) is 1-50 nanometers (such as 40 nm; page 17, para [0062]), and wherein the protrusion depth (h1, Fig. 2) is 1-50 nanometers (Lee: such as 30 nm; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of Uejima (JP 2005227699).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a nano wet etching method of a glass (page 11, para [0041]), comprising:
cleaning the glass (S610, Fig. 1; 100, Fig. 5; page 37, para [0136]; page 15, para [0057]);
forming a nanoscale pattern by wet-etching the cleaned glass (S620, Fig. 1; page 15, para [0057]; page 16, para [0059]); and
cleaning the nano-patterned glass (page 15, para [0058]),
wherein a wet etching solution used in the wet etching includes hydrofluoric acid (page 7, para [0025]), and
wherein the wet etching solution forms a nanoscale pattern (nanoscale pattern defined by W2, Fig. 5; page 24, para [0090]) having protrusions (protrusions defined by W2, Fig. 5; page 24, para [0090]) with dimensions in a nanometer scale (page 24, para [0090]) suitable for high transmittance and low reflectance (page 24, para [0090]).
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the wet etching solution (page 7, para [0025]) includes a surfactant. However, Uejima discloses a nano wet etching method of a glass (page 32, para [0038]; page 34, para [0040]) wherein an analogous wet etching solution comprising hydrofluoric acid (page 34, para [0040]) and a surfactant (page 34, para [0040]) can be used to form a nanoscale pattern (nanoscale pattern 117, Fig. 3-3; page 34, para [0040]; page 7, para [0008]) that is smoothed (page 34, para [0040]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) of Lee comprising hydrofluoric acid (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) to also include the surfactant (Uejima: page 34, para [0040]) of the analogous wet etching solution (Uejima: page 34, para [0040]) of Uejima that is applicable for etching a nanoscale pattern (Lee: nanoscale pattern defined by W2, Fig. 5; page 24, para [0090]; Uejima: nanoscale pattern 117, Fig. 3-3; page 34, para [0040]; page 7, para [0008]) in order to obtain the benefits of forming a nanoscale pattern that is smoothed as taught by Uejima (page 34, para [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a nano wet etching method with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the wet etching is performed by a dipping method (Lee: page 16, para [0059]), so that the nanoscale pattern (Lee: nanoscale pattern defined by W2, Fig. 5) is formed on at least one surface of the glass (Lee; 100, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein a wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) composition in the wet etching includes hydrofluoric acid (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) and a surfactant (Uejima: surfactant; page 34, para [0040]) and includes water as a remainder (Lee: page 7, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a wet etching solution composition with all the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses wherein the wet etching solution composition does not include H3PO4 (Lee: page 17, para [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a nano wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 7 above and further disclose wherein the wet etching solution composition in the wet etching does not include all of NH4F, HNO3, H3PO4, and HCL (Lee: since the wet etching solution composition does not include H3PO4; page 17, para [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a nano wet etching solution method with all the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses wherein the hydrofluoric acid (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) is included in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 10.0 wt%.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) includes the hydrofluoric acid (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 5.0 wt%. However, Lee discloses that the wet etching solution can be configured to include the hydrofluoric acid in an amount of less than 5.0 wt%, such as 3.0 wt%, in order to obtain an art recognized equivalent wet etching composition comprising hydrofluoric acid. Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) of Lee as modified by Uejima to include the hydrofluoric acid in an amount of less than 5.0 wt%, such as 3.0 wt% (Lee: such as 3.0 wt% of hydrofluoric acid; page 7, para [0025]), in order to obtain an art recognized equivalent wet etching composition comprising hydrofluoric acid that can effectively perform an wet etching function as taught by Lee (page 7, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a glass (Lee: 100, Fig. 5) manufactured by the nano wet etching method (Lee: page 11, para [0041]) of the glass according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of Uejima (JP 2005227699) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kurihara (U.S. 2022/0293656).
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a nano wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the nanoscale pattern (Lee: S620, Fig. 1; page 15, para [0057]; page 16, para [0059]) comprises a protrusion (Lee: protrusions defined by W2, Fig. 5) protruding from a surface of the glass (Lee: 100, Fig. 5) but does not expressly disclose that the nanoscale pattern is a moth eye structure. However, Kurihara discloses a moth eye structure pattern (20-8, Fig. 8; page 8, para [0123]) that can be formed by a wet etching method (page 8, para [0123]). Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a desired moth eye structure pattern on the glass (Lee: 100, Fig. 5) using the wet etching method (Lee: page 11, para [0041]) of Lee as taught by Kurihara (page 8, para [0123]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Uejima and Kurihara discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 3 above and further discloses wherein a protrusion thickness (Lee: W2, Fig. 2) is 1-50 nanometers (Lee: such as 40 nm; page 24, para [0090]), and wherein a protrusion depth (Lee: such as h1, Figs. 2 and 5; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]) of is 1-50 nanometers (Lee: such as 30 nm; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Uejima and Kurihara discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 3 above and further discloses wherein the protrusion thickness (Lee: W2, Fig. 5) is 5-30 nanometers (Lee: such as 30 nm; page 24, para [0090]), and a protrusion depth (Lee: such as h1, Figs. 2 and 5; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]) of the protrusion is 5-30 nanometers (Lee: such as 20 nm; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified by Uejima and Kurihara discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 3 above and further discloses wherein the protrusion thickness (Lee: such as W2 being 30 nm Fig. 5; page 24, para [0090]) is greater than the protrusion depth (Lee: (Lee: such as h1 being 20 nm Figs. 2 and 5; page 17, para [0062]; page 24, para [0090]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of Uejima (JP 2005227699) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of La et al. (U.S. 2008/0041823).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose that the wet etching solution composition (Lee: page 7, para [0025]; Uejima: surfactant; page 34, para [0040]) further includes at least one of oxalic acid and acetic acid. However, La discloses a wet etching method wherein a wet etching solution composition containing hydrogen fluoride also includes one or more of an organic acid such as acetic acid and oxalic acid (page 1, para [0013]) in order to provide an improved wet etching solution (page 4, para [0058]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]; Uejima: surfactant; page 34, para [0040]) composition of Lee as modified by Uejima comprising hydrofluoric acid (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) and a surfactant (Uejima: page 34, para [0040]) and including water as a remainder (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) to also include the acetic acid and oxalic acid (La: page 1, para [0013]) of La in order to obtain the benefits of providing an improved wet etching solution as taught by La (page 4, para [0058]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of Uejima (JP 2005227699) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yang (CN 107857481).
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified by Uejima discloses a wet etching method with all the limitations of claim 7 above but does not expressly disclose wherein a wet etching temperature is 30-70°C, and an etching time is 1-7 minutes. However, Yang ‘481 discloses a wet etching method performed at a temperature of 25-40°C and an etching time of 3-6 minutes (page 13, para [0038]) in order to provide an etching method that results in an improved appearance (page 13, para [0038]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the wet etching method of Lee as modified by Uejima to have the wet etching temperature of Yang ‘481 performed at a temperature of 30-70°C (Yang ‘481: such as 30°C; page 13, para [0038]) and at an etching time of 1-7 minutes (Yang ‘481: such as 3 minutes; page 13, para [0038]) in order to obtain the benefits of providing an etching method that results in an improved appearance as taught by Yang ‘481 (page 13, para [0038]).
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2019/0364665).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses a wet etching solution composition (page 7, para [0025]) for etching a glass (page 11, para [0041]), comprising:
hydrofluoric acid (page 7, para [0025]) in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 5.0 wt%, such as 3.0 wt% (page 7, para [0025]); and
water as a remainder (page 7, para [0025]).
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the wet etching solution (page 7, para [0025]) includes a surfactant in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 1.0 wt%. However, Yang discloses that a surfactant can be added to a wet etching solution at an amount of 0.5 wt% (page 4, para [0030, 0033]) in order to improve the etching uniformity of the wet etching solution (page 4, para [0030]). Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a surfactant (Yang: page 4, para [0030]) of Yang at an amount of 0.5 wt% (Yang: page 4, para [0033]) to the wet etching solution (Lee: page 7, para [0025]) of Lee in order to obtain the benefits of improving the etching uniformity of the wet etching solution as taught by Yang (page 4, para [0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Yang discloses a wet etching solution composition with all the limitations of claim 14 above and further discloses wherein the wet etching solution composition does not include at least one of H3PO4 (Lee: page 17, para [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art as presently search does not disclose the wet etching solution composition of claim 15 (having all the combination on features including wherein oxalic acid is included in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 5.0 wt%), does not disclose the wet etching solution of claim 16 (having all the combination of features including wherein acetic acid is included in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 10.0 wt%), and does not disclose the wet etching solution of claim 18 (having all the combination of features including wherein the amount of the acetic acid is larger than the amount of the oxalic acid).
The indicated allowability of original claims 8 and 17 in the previous office action is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims having a combination of limitations not previously considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding original claims 18-20 (currently amended claims 19-20 in the present Application), Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that Lee discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Lee’s Anti-Glare/Anti-Reflection vs. High Transmittance/Low Reflectance
Applicant argues that Lee “explicitly relies on random, maskless isotropic etching, producing protrusions with irregular size, shape, and position” and does not teach or recognize the protrusion geometry and the problem of protrusion collapse under repeated contact, nor does Lee propose any solution corresponding to Applicant’s claimed geometry. Applicant concludes that Lee’s protrusions are structurally and functionally different from Applicant’s protrusions. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of amended claims 19-20 that incorporate a combination of limitations not previously considered. Therefore, Examiner notes that Lee discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection of newly amended claims 19-20.
Teaching Away and Hindsight Reconstruction
Applicant argues that in order to arrive at original claim 18 (currently amended claim 19), Examiner must remove Lee’s mineral acid additives, add a surfactant, reduce HF to <5 wt%, change protrusion geometry to thickness > depth, shift the purpose from scattering to moth-eye AR durability. Applicant argues that this would require multiple independent modifications with no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Lee and that such reconstruction can only be achieved using Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap, which is impermissible hindsight. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that newly amended claims 19-20 is an anticipation rejection in view of Lee, and therefore Applicant’s arguments regarding modifications with no teaching, suggestion, or motivation under the obviousness standard is moot. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of amended claims 19-20 that incorporate a combination of limitations not previously considered. Therefore, Examiner notes that Lee discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection of newly amended claims 19-20.
Regarding original claims 11 and 16 (currently amended claims 14 and 17), Applicant argues that Yang’s etching targets micro-scale texture depths intending to create visual 3D appearance effects, not nanoscale optical moth-eye structures. Applicant further argues that Yang’s stated objective is to create layered visual texture effects at micro-scale etch depths, not to form nanoscale anti-reflection structures. Applicant concludes that because Yang addresses a different problem and operates in a different scale and process regime, its surfactant teaching would not have been reasonably applied to Lee’s nano-protrusion system to achieve the claimed invention. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that the limitations of claim 11 are directed to a “wet etching solution composition” itself and not specifics to a method of applying the “wet etching solution composition” to a structure. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that “Yang’s stated objective is to create layered visual texture effects at micro-scale etch depths and not to form nanoscale anti-reflection structures” are directed to structural subject matter applications and are thus moot. Moreover, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments that “the present claims are directed to forming nanoscale protrusions for high transmittance/low reflectance” are not recited in the claims. The recited limitations of claim 11 are directed to the chemical composition of the “wet etching solution” and not to its method of application to a structure. Since Yang discloses a wet etching solution (page 4, para [0030, 0033]) that is in the same field of endeavor as the wet etching solution of Lee (page 7, para [0025]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Yang to add a surfactant to an etching solution at an amount of 0.5 wt% (page 4, para [0030, 0033]) to the etching solution of Lee in order to obtain the benefits of improving the etching uniformity of the wet etching solution (page 4, para [0030]). Therefore, Lee in view of Yang discloses all the recited limitations as presented above and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding original claim 16 (currently amended claim 17), Applicant argues that Lee expressly “relies on phosphoric acid as part of its etching chemistry for protrusion formation.” However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that Lee discloses an alternative embodiment of a wet etching solution that excludes the use of phosphoric acid (Yang: H3PO4, page 17, para [0063]) since the wet etching solution includes only “fluorine-based acid and nitric acid,” which can also be used to form protrusions on a glass substrate (page 17, para [0063]). Therefore, Lee in view of Yang discloses all the recited limitations as presented above and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. In particular, the previously cited prior art reference of Lee et al. (CN 109564867) in view of the newly cited prior art reference of Uejima (JP 2005227699) discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above. In particular, Uejima “discloses a nano wet etching method of a glass (page 32, para [0038]; page 34, para [0040]) wherein an analogous wet etching solution comprising hydrofluoric acid (page 34, para [0040]) and a surfactant (page 34, para [0040]) can be used to form a nanoscale pattern (nanoscale pattern 117, Fig. 3-3; page 34, para [0040]; page 7, para [0008]) that is smoothed (page 34, para [0040]).” Therefore, Lee in view of Uejima discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above.
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 PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871