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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior art rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (EP 3518038 A1) in view of Zoller (US 5,597,622), further in view of Curran (US 2018/0084658).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses an optical member (Fig. 1, element 1) characterized by comprising: a metallic base material (2, [0035], “The frame member 2 is made of aluminum or aluminum alloy”); a low-reflective treatment layer formed on the surface of the metallic base material (4, [0043], “film quality and the like of the anodized film 4 are not particularly limited”, examiner interprets the anodized film to be the low-reflective treatment layer since as disclosed by applicant’s disclosure [0038], “When the metallic base material 2 is aluminum or an aluminum alloy, the low- reflective treatment layer 4 may be formed, for example, by forming an appropriate anodized film on the surface of the metallic base material 2”, thus the anodized layer 4 acts as a low-reflective layer due to the anodization of the aluminum layer 2); and a silica layer formed on the surface of the low-reflective treatment layer (6, [0045], “inorganic coating layer 6 formed on the surface of the anodized film 4 has the main chain composed of -Si-O-Si-O- bond”).
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose wherein a hardness of the silica layer is 250 HV or more, and a layer thickness of the silica laver is 0.1 to 10 μm.
However Zoller, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein a hardness of the silica layer is 250 HV or more (Col. 4, lines 17-26, “a relatively thick SiO.sub.2 layer 3 … The hardness of the protective layer 3 can be adjusted in very broad range via controlled variations in the plasma and coating parameters. Through special plasma coatings hardness values of approximately 1000N/mm.sup.2 up to nearly 4500N/mm.sup.2 have so far been achieved”, 1000N/mm.sup.2 converted to HV units is 306.2 HV), and a layer thickness of the silica laver is 0.1 to 10 μm (Col. 3, lines 19-20, “The SiO.sub.2 protective layer, in contrast, must be relatively thick, i.e. 500 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi with the wherein a hardness of the silica layer is 250 HV or more, and a layer thickness of the silica laver is 0.1 to 10 μm as taught by Zoller, for the purpose of improving scratch resistance of the coating (Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Modified Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy.
However Curran, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy ([0043], “a titanium substrate having an oxide film, in accordance with some embodiments. The titanium substrate can be composed of pure titanium or a titanium alloy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi in view of Zoller with the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy as taught by Curran, for the purpose of further reducing reflections on the substrate ([0040]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamaguchi teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection but does not specifically disclose wherein the layer thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm.
However Zoller, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein the layer thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm (Col. 3, lines 19-20, “The SiO.sub.2 protective layer, in contrast, must be relatively thick, i.e. 500 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi in view of Zoller further in view of Curran with the wherein the layer thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm as taught by Zoller, for the purpose of improving scratch resistance of the coating (Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamaguchi teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection and Yamaguchi further discloses Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the increase in the reflectance of visible light due to the silica layer is 5% or less ([0013], “both low dust generation property and high light resistance”, [0045], “the inorganic coating layer 6 has excellent heat resistance and light resistance”, examiner interprets this to mean the silica layer does not increase the reflectance of visible light).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses a method for producing an optical member ([0050], “method for manufacturing the support frame for pellicle”) comprising:
a low-reflective treatment step ([0050], “a first step (S 01) for subjecting the frame member 2 comprising aluminum or aluminum alloy to an anodizing treatment”) where a low-reflective treatment layer on the surface of a metallic base material is formed by subjecting to either of dyeing treatment of anodic oxide film, electrolytic coloring treatment of anodic oxide film, film thickness control of anodic oxide film, coating treatment of low-reflective film, or etching treatment using an aqueous solution which contains one or more kinds of ions selected from the group consisting of fluoride ion, borofluoride ion and silica fluoride ion, and a polar aprotonic solvent ([0054], “By performing the anodized film treatment in a relatively low voltage range as described above, depending on the material of the frame member 2 (for example, in the case where an intermetallic compound such as MgZn2 exists in the Al base material), a blackened anodized film can be obtained”); and
a surface coating treatment for forming a silica layer ([0050], “a second step (S 02) for applying the inorganic coating to the surface of an anodized film 4 formed by the anodizing treatment”).
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a silica layer having a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm on the surface of the low-reflective treatment layer by a chemical vapor deposition method, wherein a hardness of the silica laver is 250 HV or more.
However Zoller, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches a silica layer having a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm (Col. 3, lines 19-20, “The SiO.sub.2 protective layer, in contrast, must be relatively thick, i.e. 500 nm”) on the surface of the low-reflective treatment layer by a chemical vapor deposition method (Col. 2, lines 6-11, “A process for the production of transparent protective coatings comprising silicon compounds is already known and used in the coating of synthetic substrates (See DE-A-3 624 467 and EP-A-0 254 205). In this process, a chemical vapor deposition takes place under the effect of a plasma (plasma chemical vapor deposition)”), wherein a hardness of the silica laver is 250 HV or more (Col. 4, lines 17-26, “a relatively thick SiO.sub.2 layer 3 … The hardness of the protective layer 3 can be adjusted in very broad range via controlled variations in the plasma and coating parameters. Through special plasma coatings hardness values of approximately 1000N/mm.sup.2 up to nearly 4500N/mm.sup.2 have so far been achieved”, 1000N/mm.sup.2 converted to HV units is 306.2 HV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi with the silica layer having a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm on the surface of the low-reflective treatment layer by a chemical vapor deposition method, wherein a hardness of the silica laver is 250 HV or more as taught by Zoller, for the purpose of improving scratch resistance of the coating (Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Modified Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy.
However Curran, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy ([0043], “a titanium substrate having an oxide film, in accordance with some embodiments. The titanium substrate can be composed of pure titanium or a titanium alloy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi in view of Zoller with the metallic base material is made of titanium or a titanium alloy as taught by Curran, for the purpose of further reducing reflections on the substrate ([0040]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamaguchi teaches as is set forth in claim 6 rejection but does not specifically disclose wherein the thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm.
However Zoller, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein the thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm (Col. 3, lines 19-20, “The SiO.sub.2 protective layer, in contrast, must be relatively thick, i.e. 500 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi in view of Zoller further in view of Curran with the wherein the thickness of the silica layer is 0.5 to 1.5 μm as taught by Zoller, for the purpose of improving scratch resistance of the coating (Col. 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (EP 3518038 A1) in view of Zoller (US 5,597,622), further in view of Curran (US 2018/0084658) and Brunner (US 2008/0182180).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamaguchi teaches as is set forth in claim 6 rejection but does not specifically disclose wherein the reflectance of visible light is adjusted according to a desired wavelength to 10% or less by the layer thickness of the silica layer.
However Brunner, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein the reflectance of visible light is adjusted according to a desired wavelength to 10% or less by the layer thickness of the silica layer ([0043], “As can be seen the transmission is greater than 0.994 for all incident angles up to arcsine 0.45 and is a commercially effective pellicle especially for 4.times. optics up to NA=1.8”, as shown in Fig. 6, for a desired wavelength, the transmission is greater than .994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Yamaguchi in view of Zoller further in view of Curran with the wherein the reflectance of visible light is adjusted according to a desired wavelength to 10% or less by the layer thickness of the silica layer as taught by Brunner, for the purpose of improving transparency and operational properties ([0013, 0016, 0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4 March 2026