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 .
Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 17-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12, and 15 are currently amended; claims 2-4, 10-11, 13-14, and 18-21 are original; claims 5, 6, and 16 have been canceled by the applicant; and claims 17, 22, and 23 have been previously presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are rendered moot in light of the new rejections set forth below.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Re: claim 22, the meaning of the limitation that the second wavelength range comprises wavelengths between 200 nm and 2000 nm is unclear. Claim 22 depends upon claim 1, and in claim 1, the first wavelength range is defined as being between 100 nm – 300 nm, and claim 1 also requires that the second wavelength range be different from the first wavelength range and that the second wavelength range must comprise wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range. However, the language of claim 22 has defined the second wavelength range in a manner such that it overlaps the first wavelength range in the range of between 200 nm – 300 nm and thus is not different from or greater than the first wavelength range. For the purpose of examining the present application, the second wavelength range has been interpreted to comprise wavelengths between 301 nm and 2000 nm.
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) 1-3, 7-14, 17, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quijada (US 2017/0031067), of record, in view of D’Iallo (US 20180017719).
Re: claim 1, Quijada discloses a substrate (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2 or LiF), a reflective coating (paras. 12, 44 disclose aluminum mirror), applied to a rear face of the substrate (para. 60 discloses Al coated on a surface of substrate), for reflecting radiation in a first wavelength range Δλ1 between 100 nm and 300 nm (aluminum inherently can reflect UV light in the approximate range of 100 nm – 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).), and a protective coating applied to the reflective coating (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer added to Al layer and substrate), wherein the substrate is formed from a fluoridic material which is transparent to the radiation in the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (paras. 45, 61 disclose MgF2, which is inherently transparent at wavelengths over 120 nm, which entirely overlaps the claimed range); wherein the reflective coating is structured to reflect radiation that passes through the substrate to the reflective coating (capability disclosed in at least paras. 59-61), wherein the protective coating comprises at least one layer of a material non-transparent to the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer, and MgF2 inherently is not transparent at wavelengths under approximately 120 nm, which overlaps claimed range).
However, Quijada does not explicitly disclose that the reflective coating is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2 ) different from the first wavelength range ( Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1).
D’Iallo discloses that the reflective coating 50 is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2 ) different from the first wavelength range ( Δλ1) (100 nm and 300 nm), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) (where the second wavelength range is greater than 300 nm) comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (para. 52 discloses alternating layers of AlF3 and LaF3, both of which are transparent in wavelengths greater than 300 nm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective coating is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2 ) different from the first wavelength range ( Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1), as disclosed by D’Iallo, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada for the purpose of preventing corrosion and maintaining transparency in a wide variety of operating temperatures.
Re: claim 23, Quijada discloses a substrate (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2 or LiF), a reflective coating (paras. 12, 44 disclose aluminum mirror), applied to a rear face of the substrate (para. 60 discloses Al coated on a surface of substrate) for reflecting radiation in a first wavelength range ( Δλ1) that comprises wavelengths between 100 nm and 300 nm (aluminum inherently can reflect UV light in the approximate range of 100 nm – 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).), and a protective coating applied to the reflective coating (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer added to Al layer and substrate), wherein the substrate is formed from a fluoridic material which is transparent to the radiation in the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (paras. 45, 61 disclose MgF2, which is inherently transparent at wavelengths over 120 nm, which entirely overlaps the claimed range),wherein the reflective coating is structured to reflect radiation that passes through the substrate to the reflective coating (capability disclosed in at least paras. 59-61), wherein the protective coating comprises at least one layer of a material non-transparent to the first wavelength range ( Δλ1) (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer, and MgF2 inherently is not transparent at wavelengths under approximately 120 nm, which overlaps claimed range).
However, Quijada does not explicitly disclose that the reflective coating comprises a multilayer coating having a plurality of alternating layers composed of materials having different refractive indices (na, nb).
D’Iallo discloses that the reflective coating 50 (Fig. 2) comprises a multilayer coating 102, 104 having a plurality of alternating layers (Fig. 2 discloses alternating) composed of materials having different refractive indices (na, nb) (para. 52 discloses AlF3, having a refractive index of 1.36 and LaF3, having a refractive index of 1.60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective coating comprise a multilayer coating having a plurality of alternating layers composed of materials having different refractive indices, as disclosed by D’Iallo, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada, for the purpose of preventing corrosion and maintaining transparency in a wide variety of operating temperatures.
Re: claim 2, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Quijada further discloses that the first wavelength range is between 100 nm and 200 nm) (aluminum inherently can reflect UV light in the approximate range of 100 nm – 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).)
Re: claim 3, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Quijada further discloses that the protective coating (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer) has a thickness of at least 5 nm. While Quijada does not explicitly disclose that the protective coating has a thickness of at least 50 nm, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date to have modified the thickness of the protective coating, a results-effective variable, to minimize the overall thickness of the protective coating while still generating desired magnitude and angles of reflection and refraction for light transmitted through the coating. In addition, the presence of a known results-effective variable is one motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to achieve a workable product (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 7, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 23, and D’Iallo further discloses that the multilayer coating has at least one layer of a fluoridic material which is selected from the group consisting of:AlF3, LiF, BaF2, NaF, MgF2, CaF2, LaF3, GdF3, HoF3, YbF3, YF3, LuF3, ErF3, Na3AlF6, Na5A13F14, ZrF4, HfF4 and combinations thereof (para. 52 discloses AlF3, having a refractive index of 1.36 and LaF3, having a refractive index of 1.60).
Re: claim 9, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 23, and while neither reference explicitly discloses that the protective film takes the form of a multilayer coating having a plurality of alternating layers of materials having different refractive indices, D’Iallo teaches the technique of utilizing alternating layers of materials having different refractive indices (para. 52 discloses AlF3, having a refractive index of 1.36 and LaF3, having a refractive index of 1.60). This technique is well-known in the art by a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date as being an effective way to reflect light. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known device that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 10, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Quijada further discloses a further substrate (para. 62 discloses additional MgF2 layer that is deposited on the substrate, the reflective layer, and the protective coating) on which a surface is formed, which is bonded to a surface of the protective coating by a direct bond (paras. 61 and 62 disclose that the protective coating and the further substrate are both comprised of MgF2, therefore there is a direct bond), wherein the surface bonded to the surface of the protective coating is formed atop a coating applied to the further substrate.
Re: claim 11, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 10. While Quijada does not explicitly disclose that the substrate has a thickness (D) of less than 5 mm, Quijada does disclose the process by which a substrate having an unspecified thickness is manufactured (paras. 45-47). A person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would have modified the thickness of the substrate, a results-effective variable, to minimize overall thickness of the substrate while maintaining the required strength and flexibility to support the multiple layers of the overall device. In addition, , the presence of a known results-effective variable is one motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to achieve a workable product (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 12, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitation of claim 10, and Quijada further discloses that the further substrate (para. 62 discloses additional MgF2 layer that is deposited on the substrate, the reflective layer, and the protective coating) and the coating of the further substrate are transparent in the second wavelength range (paras. 61 and 62 disclose that the protective coating and the further substrate are both comprised of MgF2, therefore there is a direct bond, and MgF2 is transparent in wavelength ranges of 301 nm – 7000 nm, which overlaps the claimed range).
Re: claim 13, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 10, and Quijada further discloses that a coefficient of thermal expansion (α1) of the substrate and a coefficient of thermal expansion (α2) of the further substrate differ by not more than 5*10-6 K-1. (paras. 45 and 62 disclose that the substrate and the other substrate are both comprised of MgF2).
Re: claim 14, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 10, and Quijada further discloses that the further substrate is formed from a fluoridic material selected from the group consisting of: CaF2, MgF2, LiF, LaF3, BaF2 and SrF2. (para. 62 discloses MgF2).
Re: claim 17, Quijada discloses the steps of applying a reflective coating (paras. 12, 44 disclose aluminum mirror) to a rear face of a substrate (para. 60 discloses Al coated on a surface of substrate) formed from a fluoridic material (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2 or LiF), wherein the reflective coating is structured to reflect radiation in a first wavelength range (Ali) between 100 nm and 300 nm (aluminum inherently can reflect UV light in the approximate range of 100 nm – 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).), and wherein the substrate is formed from a material transparent to the radiation in the first wavelength range (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2, which is transparent in the claimed range) and to the further radiation in the second wavelength range (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2, which is transparent for wavelengths greater than 301 nm), and applying a protective coating to the reflective coating (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer added to Al layer and substrate).
Quijada does not explicitly disclose transmitting further radiation in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range, which passes through the substrate to the reflective coating.
D’Iallo discloses that the reflective coating 50 is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2 ) different from the first wavelength range ( Δλ1) (100 nm and 300 nm), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) (where the second wavelength range is greater than 300 nm) comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (para. 52 discloses alternating layers of AlF3 and LaF3, both of which are transparent in wavelengths greater than 300 nm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective coating be transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2 ) different from the first wavelength range ( Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1), as disclosed by D’Iallo, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada for the purpose of preventing corrosion and maintaining transparency in a wide variety of operating temperatures.
Re: claim 21, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 17, and while neither reference explicitly discloses using atomic layer deposition to apply the protective coating to the reflective coating, there is no evidence of record that using atomic vapor deposition imparts a characteristic, quality or feature to the device that would not otherwise be present if some other method were used, such as spin coating. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known method that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 22, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Quijada further discloses that the second wavelength range comprises wavelengths between 301 nm and 2000 nm (the substrate and the protective coating are comprised of MgF2, which is transparent in wavelength ranges of 301 nm – 2000 nm).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quijada, in view of D’Iallo and Ballou (US 2018/0196173), of record.
Re: claim 4, Quijada and D’Iallo disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that the protective coating has at least one layer of an oxidic material which is selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, SiO2, MgO, BeO, HfO2, Sc2O3, Y2O3, Yb2O3 and combinations thereof.
Ballou discloses that the protective coating (Fig. 8A) has at least one layer of an oxidic material which is selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, SiO2, MgO, BeO, HfO2, Sc2O3, Y2O3, Yb2O3 and combinations thereof (paras. 34, 58, 66).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective coating have at least one layer of an oxidic material which is selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, SiO2, MgO, BeO, HfO2, Sc2O3, Y2O3, Yb2O3 and combinations thereof, as disclosed by Ballou, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada and D’Iallo for the purpose of improving the durability of the reflective coating.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quijada in view of D’Iallo and Zhang (US 2016/0258878), of record.
Re: claim 15, Quijada discloses an optical element, comprising: a substrate (paras. 44-45 disclose substrate comprised of MgF2 or LiF), a reflective coating (paras. 12, 44 disclose aluminum mirror), applied to a rear face of the substrate (para. 60 discloses Al coated on a surface of substrate), for reflecting radiation (aluminum inherently can reflect UV light in the approximate range of 100 nm – 400 nm. Where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).), and a protective coating (para. 61 discloses MgF2 layer added to Al layer and substrate ) applied to the reflective coating, wherein the substrate is formed from a fluoridic material which is transparent to the radiation in the first wavelength range (Δλ1) (paras. 45, 61 disclose MgF2, which is inherently transparent at wavelengths over 120 nm, which overlaps the entirety of the claimed range), and wherein the reflective coating is structured to reflect radiation that passes through the substrate to the reflective coating (capability disclosed in at least paras. 59-61).
Quijada does not explicitly disclose that the reflective coating is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range, and a radiation source for generating radiation in a first wavelength range (Δλ1) between 100 nm and 300 nm and that the optical arrangement is structured to direct the radiation from the radiation source onto a front face of the substrate, wherein the radiation source or a first radiation source is structured to generate further radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2) different from the first wavelength range (Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1), and wherein the optical arrangement is structured to direct the first radiation in the second wavelength range (Δλ2) onto the front face or onto the rear face of the substrate.
D'Iallo discloses that the reflective coating 50 is transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range (para. 52 discloses alternating layers of AlF3 and LaF3, both of which are transparent in wavelengths greater than 300 nm, and where the second wavelength range is greater than 300 nm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflective coating be transparent for radiation in a second wavelength range where the second wavelength range comprises wavelengths greater than the wavelengths of the first wavelength range, as disclosed by D’Iallo, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada, for the purpose of utilizing the optical element in visible and infrared light environments.
Zhang discloses a radiation source 102 (Fig. 1) for generating radiation in a first wavelength range (Δλ1) between 100 nm and 300 nm (para. 26 discloses a range of infrared to VUV, a range that includes wavelengths of approximately 100 nm – 1 mm, which overlaps the claimed range) and that the optical arrangement 100 is structured to direct the radiation from the radiation source 102 onto a front face of the substrate 104 (Fig. 1), wherein the radiation source or a first radiation source is structured to generate further radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2) different from the first wavelength range (Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1) and (para. 26 discloses a range of infrared to VUV, a range that includes wavelengths of approximately 100 nm – 1 mm, which overlaps the claimed range), and wherein the optical arrangement is structured to direct the first radiation in the second wavelength range (Δλ2) onto the front face or onto the rear face of the substrate (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radiation source for generating radiation in a first wavelength range (Δλ1) between 100 nm and 300 nm and that the optical arrangement is structured to direct the radiation from the radiation source onto a front face of the substrate, wherein the radiation source or a first radiation source is structured to generate further radiation in a second wavelength range (Δλ2) different from the first wavelength range (Δλ1), wherein the second wavelength range (Δλ2) comprises wavelengths greater than wavelengths of the first wavelength range (Δλ1) and comprises wavelengths between 301 nm and 2000 nm, and wherein the optical arrangement is structured to direct the first radiation in the second wavelength range (Δλ2) onto the front face or onto the rear face of the substrate, as disclosed by Zhang, applied to the device disclosed by Quijada for the purpose of inspecting a manufactured semiconductor for defects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871