Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on October 27th, 2025. Claims 31-70 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27th, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 13-14, “Remarks”) that Hart simply lists a wide range of hydrogen contents and does not disclose the technical significance of hydrogenation, much less any findings regarding the relationship between the value or effects of hydrogenation. Moreover, these deficiencies are not addressed by Asakawa.
In response to applicant's argument that Hart doesn’t disclose the technical significance of hydrogenation, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, Hart provides appropriate ranges of hydrogenation percentage as required by the claim while Asakawa determines that hydrogenation percentage controls transmittance and can be optimized.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 15, “Remarks”) that the combination of Hart and Asakawa does not necessarily result in an amorphous structure. Examiner’s attention is invited to Yu, et al, and Dave, et al.
Applicant does not provide a clear or specific reason as to why Hart cannot be modified by Asakawa and merely points to Yu and Dave. The references have been considered, but applicant has not established a nexus between Hart, Asakawa, Yu, Dave, and the obviousness analysis made in the non-final rejection. It does not appear that anything in Yu or Dave clearly supports applicant’s arguments. See MPEP § 2145. “Consideration of rebuttal evidence and arguments requires Office personnel to weigh the proffered evidence and arguments. Id.; see also In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1174-75, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Office personnel should avoid giving no weight to evidence submitted by applicant, except in rare circumstances. However, to be entitled to substantial weight, the applicant should establish a nexus between the rebuttal evidence and the claimed invention, i.e., objective evidence of nonobviousness must be attributable to the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that applicant bears the burden of establishing nexus…”.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 31-37, 40, 49-51, 55, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (2020/0158916 A1; hereinafter Hart) in view of Asakawa (2005/0008775 A1; hereinafter Asakawa)..
Regarding Claim 31, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches an optical element ([0035], 100), comprising:
a base ([0035], 110); and
an optical structure ([0035], 120) formed on the base (110), the optical structure (120) including alternately laminated layers of a first type ([0043], 130B) and layers of a second type ([0043], 130A); and
a film (130B) constituting each of the layers of the first type (130B) is amorphous and comprises hydrogen ([0099], hydrogenated) and an oxide of transition metal of groups 3 to 11 ([0099], may be hafnium), wherein
a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage, and
the content of hydrogen in the film is at least 1.0 at% ([0099], may be hydrogenated up to 30% by weight) (As determined by the applicant, up to 30% by weight is equal to up to 92% atomic %) .
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a film constituting each of the layers of the first type is amorphous.
However, Asakawa teaches a film ([0022], optical thin film) constituting each of the layers of the first type ([0025], hafnium oxide, for example) is amorphous ([0023]). Asakawa also teaches that an amorphous structure achieves a high transmittance ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the amorphous structure of Asakawa to achieve a high transmittance.
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage.
Atomic percentages, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such atomic percentages are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since Hart teaches that the film may be hydrogenated by up to 92 atomic %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and control the percentage of hydrogenation through routine experimentation, as this percentage is a result-effective variable, that is, a variable which achieves a recognized result, as stated in MPEP § 2144.05. In this instance, the percentage of hydrogenation determines the transmittance of the film as taught by Asakawa. It has been well established that the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable can be characterized as routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage because it controls transmittance of the film.
Regarding Claim 32, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the content of hydrogen in the film (130B) is equal to or less than a half (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %) of the content of transition metal (hafnium).
Regarding Claim 33, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the transition metal is of groups 4 or 5 ([0099], may be hafnium).
Regarding Claim 34, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 33, wherein the transition metal is of periods 5 or 6 ([0099], may be hafnium).
Regarding Claim 35, Hart doesn’t teach the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the oxide of transition metal comprises tantalum oxide.
However, Asakawa teaches an optical thin film may be formed from tantalum oxide ([0025]). Asakawa also teaches that this material has a high refractive index and can be utilized to transmit only a specific wavelength ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the tantalum oxide of Asakawa to transmit specific wavelengths and provide a high index of refraction.
Regarding Claim 36, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 35, wherein the content of hydrogen is less than 10.0 at% (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 37, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 35, wherein the content of hydrogen is 3.0 at% or more (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 40, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the layers of the second type (130A) have a lower refractive index ([0091]) than the refractive index of the layers of the first type (130B).
Regarding Claim 49, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein contents of silicon, carbon, and nitrogen in the film are each less than 0.5 at% ([0099], the transition metal oxides are not quoted to contain silicon, carbon, or nitrogen and are thus at 0 at%).
Regarding Claim 50, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the film (130B) has a thickness of 10-1000 nm ([0094], may range from 50 nm to 3000 nm).
Regarding Claim 51, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the optical element (100) is a lens ([0122]).
Regarding Claim 55, Hart (figs. 2A and 4A) teaches optical equipment ([0120] 400), comprising: a plurality of optical elements ([0120], multiple 100); and a holding part ([0120], 402) configured to hold the plurality of optical elements (multiple 100), wherein the plurality of optical elements (multiple 100) comprise the optical element (100) according to claim 31.
Regarding Claim 58, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches optical equipment ([0120], 400) configured as an exposing apparatus ([0049], [0120], exposes 100 to illuminants), comprising:
at least one configuration of (i) an illumination optical system (400) configured to illuminate a reticle ([0120], display 410), (ii) a projection optical system configured to project a pattern of the reticle onto a processing target, (iii) a correction optical system configured to correct an aberration of the projection optical system or (iv) an alignment mechanism configured to align the reticle and the processing target; the configuration comprising
an amorphous film ([0043], 130B) comprising hydrogen ([0099], hydrogenated) and an oxide of transition metal of groups 3 to 11 ([0099], may be hafnium), wherein
a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage, and
the content of hydrogen in the film is at least 1.0 at% ([0099], may be hydrogenated up to 30% by weight) (As determined by the applicant, up to 30% by weight is equal to up to 92% atomic %).
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a film constituting each of the layers of the first type is amorphous.
However, Asakawa teaches a film ([0022], optical thin film) constituting each of the layers of the first type ([0025], hafnium oxide, for example) is amorphous ([0023]). Asakawa also teaches that an amorphous structure achieves a high transmittance ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the amorphous structure of Asakawa to achieve a high transmittance.
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage.
Atomic percentages, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such atomic percentages are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since Hart teaches that the film may be hydrogenated by up to 92 atomic %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and control the percentage of hydrogenation through routine experimentation, as this percentage is a result-effective variable, that is, a variable which achieves a recognized result, as stated in MPEP § 2144.05. In this instance, the percentage of hydrogenation determines the transmittance of the film as taught by Asakawa. It has been well established that the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable can be characterized as routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage because it controls transmittance of the film.
Claims 39, 59-60 and 65-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart and Asakawa, as applied to Claims 31 and 58, and further in view of Hattori et al. (2022/0155619 A1; hereinafter Hattori).
Regarding Claim 39, Hart doesn’t teach the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the film comprises an element of group 18, and a content of the element of group 18 in the film is lower than the content of hydrogen in the film.
However, Hattori (fig. 1) teaches the film ([0028], [0047], 21/22) comprises an element of group 18 ([0049], argon). Hattori teaches that inclusion of argon at these concentrations allows the electro-optical substrate to maintain excellent reliability even under a severe high-temperature environment ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the argon of Hattori to maintain excellent electro-optical reliability.
Furthermore, the combination of Hattori (fig. 1) and Hart (fig. 2A) teaches a content of element of group 18 (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22) is lower than the content of hydrogen in the film (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 59, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the content of hydrogen in the film (130B) is no more than half (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %) of the content of transition metal (hafnium) in the film (130B), and the content of oxygen in the film (130B) is higher (hafnium oxide has two oxygen for every one hafnium) than the content of transition metal (hafnium) in the film (130B). Hart doesn’t teach the optical equipment according to claim 58, wherein the film comprises an element of group 18, the content of hydrogen in the film is higher than a content of element of group 18.
However, Hattori (fig. 1) teaches the film ([0028], [0047], 21/22) comprises an element of group 18 ([0049], argon). Hattori teaches that inclusion of argon at these concentrations allows the electro-optical substrate to maintain excellent reliability even under a severe high-temperature environment ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the argon of Hattori to maintain excellent electro-optical reliability.
Furthermore, the combination of Hattori (fig. 1) and Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the content of hydrogen in the film is higher (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %) than a content of element of group 18 (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22).
Regarding Claim 60, Hattori (fig. 1) teaches the optical equipment according to claim 59, wherein the content of element of group 18 in the film (21/22) is 0.5-5.0 at% ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 65, Hart doesn’t teach the optical element according to claim 31, wherein the film comprises argon, and an argon content of the film is 0.5 at% or more.
However, Hattori (fig. 1) teaches the film ([0028], [0047], 21/22) comprises argon ([0049], argon), and an argon content of the film is 0.5 at% or more ([0049]). Hattori teaches that inclusion of argon at these concentrations allows the electro-optical substrate to maintain excellent reliability even under a severe high-temperature environment ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the argon of Hattori to maintain excellent electro-optical reliability.
Regarding Claim 66, the combination of Hattori and Hart teaches the optical element according to claim 65, wherein a sum of the transition metal content, oxygen content, hydrogen content (Hart, [0099], the transition metal oxides are not cited to contain anything besides hydrogen up to 92 atomic %) and argon content (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22) of the film is 99.0 at%.
Regarding Claim 67, the combination of Hattori and Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 65, wherein the hydrogen content of the film (Hart, 130B) is lower than a sum of the transition metal content of the film and the oxygen content of the film (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %), and the hydrogen content of the film is higher (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %) than the argon content of the film (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22).
Regarding Claim 68, Hattori teaches the optical element according to claim 65, wherein an argon content of the film (21/22) is 5.0 at% or less ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 69, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical equipment according to claim 58, wherein the hydrogen content of the film (130B) is less than 10.0 at% (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 70, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical equipment according to claim 58, wherein the hydrogen content of the film (130B) is at least 3.0 at% (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Claims 41-45, 48, 52, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart in view of Asakawa and Hattori.
Regarding Claim 41, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches an optical element ([0035], 100), comprising:
a base ([0035], 110); and
an optical structure ([0035], 120) formed on the base (110);
the optical structure (120) comprising an amorphous film ([0043], 130B), the film comprising hydrogen ([0099], hydrogenated) and an oxide of transition metal of groups 3 to 11 ([0099], may be hafnium), and an element of group 18, wherein
a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage, and
the content of hydrogen in the film is at least 1.0 at%, and
a sum of the contents of transition metal, oxygen, hydrogen and element of group 18 in the film is 99.0 at% or more.
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a film constituting each of the layers of the first type is amorphous.
However, Asakawa teaches a film ([0022], optical thin film) constituting each of the layers of the first type ([0025], hafnium oxide, for example) is amorphous ([0023]). Asakawa also teaches that an amorphous structure achieves a high transmittance ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the amorphous structure of Asakawa to achieve a high transmittance.
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach the film comprising an element of group 18.
However, Hattori (fig. 1) teaches the film ([0028], [0047], 21/22) comprising an element of group 18 ([0049], argon). Hattori teaches that inclusion of argon at these concentrations allows the electro-optical substrate to maintain excellent reliability even under a severe high-temperature environment ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the argon of Hattori to maintain excellent electro-optical reliability.
Hart doesn’t explicitly teach a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage.
Atomic percentages, however, will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such atomic percentages are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since Hart teaches that the film may be hydrogenated by up to 92 atomic %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and control the percentage of hydrogenation through routine experimentation, as this percentage is a result-effective variable, that is, a variable which achieves a recognized result, as stated in MPEP § 2144.05. In this instance, the percentage of hydrogenation determines the transmittance of the film as taught by Asakawa. It has been well established that the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable can be characterized as routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a sum of contents of the transition metal and oxygen in the film is higher than a content of hydrogen in the film, each content being specified in atomic percentage because it controls transmittance of the film.
Furthermore, the combination of Hattori and Hart (fig. 2A) teaches a sum of the contents of transition metal, oxygen, hydrogen (Hart, [0099], the transition metal oxides are not cited to contain anything besides hydrogen up to 92 atomic %) and element of group 18 (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22) in the film is 99.0 at% or more.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of Hattori and Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 41, wherein the content of hydrogen in the film (Hart, 130B) is lower than the content of transition metal and the content of oxygen (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic % and higher (Hart, may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %) than the content of element of group 18 (Hattori, [0047], [0049], argon in tantalum oxide 21/22).
Regarding Claim 43, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 41, wherein the oxide of transition metal comprises hafnium oxide ([0099], may be hafnium).
Regarding Claim 44, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 43, wherein the content of hydrogen in the film (130B) is 16.0 at% or less (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 45, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 43, wherein the content of hydrogen in the film (130B)is 6.0 at% or more (may be hydrogenated up to 92 atomic %).
Regarding Claim 48, Hattori teaches the optical element according to claim 41, wherein a content of argon in the film (21/22) is 0.5-5.0 at% ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 52, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 41, wherein the optical structure (120) has an antireflection structure ([0087]).
Regarding Claim 56, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches optical equipment ([0120], 400), comprising: the optical element (100) according to claim 41; and a light source ([0049], illuminants) configured to generate light to irradiate the film (130B).
Regarding Claim 57, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical equipment according to claim 56, wherein the light has at least one wavelength within the range of 280-380 nm ([0096], may provide measurements at a wavelength of 300 nm).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, Asakawa, and Hattori as applied to Claim 43, and further in view of Ino et al. (2012/0068250 A1; hereinafter Ino).
Regarding Claim 46, Hart (fig. 2A) teaches the optical element according to claim 43, wherein the hafnium oxide contains 0.05-0.5 at% zirconium.
However, Ino (fig. 1) teaches the hafnium oxide ([0031], 13) contains 0.05-0.5 at% zirconium ([0067]). Ino also teaches that hafnium and zirconium have similar chemical properties and that additional separation of the two elements is cost intensive ([0067]). However, the amount of zirconium present in hafnium does not appear within the range of experimental accuracy and will achieve a similar effect to a pure hafnium oxide film ([0067]) and will, as a result, be available at a realistic cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the hafnium oxide of Ino to maintain a realistic cost for the film.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, Asakawa, and Hattori as applied to Claim 41, and further in view of Cai et al. (2015/0212240 A1; hereinafter Cai).
Regarding Claim 53, Hart doesn’t teach the optical element according to claim 41, wherein the optical structure has a reflection structure.
However, Cai (fig. 1) teaches the optical structure ([0010], 2) has a reflection structure ([0010]). Cai also teaches that this reflective structure can be formed of hydrogenated transition metal oxides ([0017]) and can be used for multiple applications ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the reflective structure of Cai to provide multiple additional applications for the optical film.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, Asakawa, and Hattori as applied to Claim 41, and further in view of Ogino et al. (2019/0371836 A1; hereinafter Ogino).
Regarding Claim 54, Hart doesn’t teach the optical element according to claim 41, wherein the base has a photoelectric structure.
However, Ogino (fig. 2) teaches the base ([0029], 2) has a photoelectric structure ([0029], 100). Ogino also teaches that a stacked layer structure ([0029], 130) containing transition metal oxides may be formed on the base and enables light to efficiently enter the photoelectric conversion unit ([0058]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical element of Hart to include the photoelectric structure of Ogino to provide a more efficient photoelectric conversion unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 61-64 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. None of the references cited, either singly or in combination, teach or render obvious the limitations presented in Claim 61 wherein “the optical film has a refractive index for light of a wavelength of 280 nm of 2.15 or more, and the optical film has an absorptance for light of a wavelength of 280 nm of 0.2% or less” and in Claim 62 wherein “the optical film has a refractive index for the light of a wavelength of 313 nm of 2.40 or more, and the optical film has an absorptance for light of a wavelength of 313 nm of 0.40% or less”.
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.”
Claims 38 and 47 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. None of the references cited, either singly or in combination, teach or render obvious the limitations presented in Claim 38 wherein “an absorptance for light of a wavelength of 313 nm is 0.40% or less, and a refractive index for the light of a wavelength of 313 nm is 2.40 or more” and in Claim 47 wherein “a refractive index for light of a wavelength of 280 nm of 2.15 or more, and an absorptance for light of a wavelength of 280 nm of 0.2% or less”.
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 ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 16, 2026