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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
With respect to claim 4, applicant claims a substrate that comprises a table of constituents. However, the constituents all include a range from 0 to N% by weight. Additionally, applicant’s use of open language also allows for an interpretation of, for example, SiO2 having a weight of 99%. This is due to 99% comprising at least 80%. Therefore, since the range for each includes 0% and the language of the limitation allows for greater weights, none of the constituents are required and the claim does not further limit claim 3.
With respect to claim 10, applicant claims at least one of a plurality of limitations wherein one of the limitations is a TTV ≤ 10 µm. However, claim 1 comprises the limitation of TTV ≤ 1 µm. Therefore, so long as claim 1 is satisfied, so is claim 10. As such, claim 10 is not further limiting claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, applicant claims the substrate has a first and second surface and that at least one surface is planar, concave or convex. It is inherent that any material object has a first side and an opposite side. Further, a surface must be at least partially planar or at least partially curved, the office can think of no other additional shapes that would not fit into these two categories. Therefore, claim 11 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-15 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (PGPUB 20070125747, of record) in view of Katayama (PGPUB 20170345699).
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses a method for physically modifying at least one of at least one region of a surface of a substrate and at least one portion of the substrate, the substrate comprising a multicomponent glass ([0018] where the substrate glass may be ULE or Zerodur), the method comprising the steps of:
providing an apparatus (Fig. 1) and the substrate (7), the apparatus including a radiation source configured for generating a particle beam (3);
feeding the substrate to the apparatus and applying a vacuum ([0022]);
modifying at least one of the at least one region of the surface of the substrate and the at least one portion of the substrate by an exposure to the particle beam ([0011]).
Otsuka does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate including at least one modified region which has a Total Thickness Variation (TTV) of ≤ 1µm.
However, Katayama teaches a glass substrate that is subjected to a polishing treatment that results in a TTV of 0.45 µm ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Otsuka and Katayama such that the TTV of the glass substrate was less than 1µm motivated by reducing manufacturing costs ([0047]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of oxides of at least two different cations, the substrate being an optical glass, an optical ceramic, or a glass-ceramic ([0018]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Otsuka discloses wherein a refractive index nd of the substrate, based on a wavelength of 587.6 nm, is in a range from 1.45 to 2.45 ([0018]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate has an internal transmission of at least 80% measured at a wavelength of 450 nm and a sample thickness of 10 mm ([0018]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Otsuka discloses wherein before the step of providing, the substrate is separated off from a monolithic bar or block, the method further comprising the steps of:
drilling a cylinder from the monolithic bar or block ([0030] cut from ingot);
separating off the substrate from the cylinder ([0030]);
grinding a plurality of edges of the substrate to a desired wafer diameter ([0030] cut to size and [0002] discusses the method in the context of wafer lithography);
introducing faceting of the plurality of edges ([0030] chamfer);
applying a positional mark ([0030] via machining the chamfer);
fine-working at least one surface of the substrate ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate has a thickness of between 0.2 mm and 2 mm ([0037] of Katayama), the thickness of the substrate being smaller than a lateral extent of the substrate (Fig. 3e of Katayama).
Regarding claim 9, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate is rotationally symmetrical and has a diameter which is between 0.7 cm and 50 cm, and corresponds to a diameter of a 2-inch wafer or a 50.8 mm wafer, a 3-inch wafer or a 76.2 mm wafer, a 4-inch wafer or a 100 mm wafer, a 5-inch wafer or a 125 mm wafer, a 6-inch wafer or a 150 mm wafer, a 8-inch wafer or a 200 mm wafer, a 12-inch wafer or a 300 mm wafer, or an 18- inch wafer or a 450 mm wafer ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate or a plurality of surfaces delimiting the substrate in a lateral direction fulfill at least one of the following characteristics:
Total Thickness Variation (TTV): <= 10µm;
Local Slope: <= 1 arcmin;
Warp: 100 µm;
Bow: -100 µm <= Bow <= 100 µm;
Roughness: Rq <= 10 µm ([0011]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite thereto, the first surface and the second surface being planar or at least one of the first surface and the second surface being concave or convex ([0030] and see the 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the step of modifying comprises polishing the at least one region of the surface of the substrate or an entire surface of the substrate with the particle beam ([0028]), the exposure to the particle beam causing an atomization and an ablation of a material from the surface ([0023] and note that atomization and ablation would be inherent results of the disclosed material being subjected to the cluster ion beam).
Regarding claim 13, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the substrate comprises at least one modified region which fulfills at least one of the following characteristics:
Local Slope: <= 0.3 arcmi;
Warp: <= 100 pm;
Roughness: Rq<= 1 µm ([0011]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the step of modifying at least one of:
reduces an existing thickness difference ([0011] improved flatness, which requires adjusting the difference in thickness); and
creates a predetermined thickness distribution.
Regarding claim 15, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the method further includes measuring a thickness distribution or a thickness profile of the substrate before the step of modifying in order to obtain a plurality of specifications for the step of modifying ([0020] where the substrate is measured after the mechanical polish), the measuring taking place by way of at least one method of interferometry or by way of an interferometry of a plurality of planar wavefronts ([0020] where the measurement is performed by a laser interferometric flatness tester).
Regarding claim 18, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the step of modifying comprises working an edge of the substrate ([0028] entire surface).
Regarding claim 19, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the step of modifying comprises structuring or introducing a grating or a pattern on the at least one region of the surface of the substrate with the particle beam ([0002]-[0003] and further note that “introducing… a pattern” is understood to mean modify the surface in a repeated way – such as flattening or polishing – since it has not been given a specific definition in the specification).
Regarding claim 20, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the particle beam is a focused ion beam, which, for the step of modifying, is guided by way of a plurality of deflection units over the at least one region of the surface of the substrate or the at least one portion of the substrate ([0022], 8).
Regarding claim 21, modified Otsuka discloses a substrate, comprising:
a multicomponent glass (7), which is produced or configured for being produced by a method for physically modifying at least one of at least one region of a surface of the substrate and at least one portion of the substrate (Abst), the method comprising the steps of:
providing an apparatus and the substrate, the apparatus including a radiation source configured for generating a particle beam (Fig. 1);
feeding the substrate to the apparatus and applying a vacuum ([0022]);
modifying at least one of the at least one region of the surface of the substrate and the at least one portion of the substrate by an exposure to the particle beam ([0011]).
Otsuka does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate including at least one modified region which has a Total Thickness Variation (TTV) of ≤ 1µm.
However, Katayama teaches a glass substrate that is subjected to a polishing treatment that results in a TTV of 0.45 µm ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Otsuka and Katayama such that the TTV of the glass substrate was less than 1µm motivated by reducing manufacturing costs ([0047]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Otsuka discloses wherein at least one surface of the substrate possesses a near-surface marginal region having a depth of up to 500 nm ([0011]), the near-surface marginal region being free or largely free of an accumulation of cerium oxide or potassium ([0024] and note that any excess accumulation of cerium oxide from the slurry, [0031], would necessarily be removed prior to ion polishing or via the ion polishing, otherwise no accurate polishing of the substrate surface could be accomplished).
Regarding claim 23, modified Otsuka discloses wherein at least one surface of the substrate has fewer than 100 2 µm x 2 µm, with a respective one of the scratches having: a length in a range from 100 nm to 15,000 nm; a depth of 0.5 to 100 nm; and a width of 0.5 to 50 nm (Otsuka does not disclose having any scratches).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of Katayama and further in view of Blair et al. (PGPUB 20190193198).
Regarding claim 3, modified Otsuka does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises at least one optical crown glass or at least one optical flint glass, selected from the group including at least one of silicon-, boron-, aluminum-, phosphorus-, fluorine-, lanthanum-, titanium-, barium- and niobium- containing crown or flint glasses.
However, Blair teaches a beam based optical machining apparatus that includes a glass substrate comprises a borosilicate crown glass ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Otsuka and Blair such that the substrate comprised crown glass motivated by reducing the cost of the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, modified Otsuka discloses wherein the glass comprises at least 0-55% by weight of B2O3 ([0023] and please see the 112 rejection above).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of Katayama and further in view of Watanabe et al. (PGPUB 20120067843, of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Otsuka recognizes that the glass substrate may include a mask in particular use cases ([0003]-[0004]). However, Otsuka does not disclose wherein, before the step of modifying, a supporting layer is applied at least to a plurality of the region of the surface of the substrate or the at least one portion of the substrate that is/are to be modified, the supporting layer being a carbon layer or a graphite layer.
However, Watanabe teaches a method of manufacturing using beam etching on glass substrates ([0019]) that includes applying a carbon mask ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Otsuka and Watanabe such that at least a portion of the beam etching include occur with a carbon mask motivated by improving beam accuracy for particular design needs.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of Katayama and further in view of Black et al. (PGPUB 20130192305, of record).
Regarding claim 17, modified Otsuka does not disclose wherein the step of modifying comprises generating a microgroove or microgap for subsequent parting.
However, Black teaches a method of forming glass substrate sheets to be separated by etching a groove in the substrate ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Otsuka and Black such that the glass substrate was separated via a groove created by the ion beam motivated by improving manufacturing efficiency.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka in view of Katayama and further in view of Jones et al. (PGPUB 20180052501).
Regarding claim 24, modified Otsuka discloses a method of using a substrate, the method comprising the steps of:
providing that the substrate includes a multicomponent glass (7),
wherein the multicomponent glass is produced or configured for being produced by a method for physically modifying at least one of at least one region of a surface of the substrate and at least one portion of the substrate ([0011]), the method for physically modifying comprising the steps of:
providing an apparatus and the substrate (Fig. 1), the apparatus including a radiation source configured for generating a particle beam (3);
feeding the substrate to the apparatus and applying a vacuum ([0022]);
modifying at least one of the at least one region of the surface of the substrate and the at least one portion of the substrate by an exposure to the particle beam ([0011]).
Otsuka does not disclose using the substrate for at least one application in a field of augmented reality.
However, Jones teaches an augmented reality device (11400) comprising a low TTV glass substrate ([0808]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Otsuka and Jones such that the glass substrate was used in the filed of augmented reality motivated by improving image quality ([0808]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 11, the applicant states that the claim “provides that the substrate has a listed constituent, which excludes the possibility that each and every one of the listed constituents is “0.”” The office respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s claims explicitly claims that each and everyone one of the constituents may be “0” in the table. Further, applicant mischaracterizes the claim language by saying “has a listed constituent”, when the claim states that it “…comprises the following constituents…”. By applicant’s argument the claim would require all of the listed components, which is clearly not the case. Applicant should amend the claim to something similar to “comprises at least one of the following constituents” and the table should provide non-zero minimums. Applicant could also modify the table to something similar to:
Constituent
Amount (wt%)
SiO2
0 < wt% ≤ 80
These amendments would make it clear that at least one of the constituents is required and that the minimum of any one of the constituents present must be greater than 0.
Regarding applicant’s remarks with respect to claim 11, applicant traverses the rejection as it calls out opposing surfaces, as opposed surfaces that are not opposite one another. Whether the applicant is calling out any particular surface is not relevant to the issue of not further limiting the independent claim. The applicant’s language has not limited the shape of the substrate since they have, essentially, claimed all possible surface shapes (planar or curved). Further, the applicant has not specified if it is the entire surface or a portion thereof (for example, it is common in the optical arts that an applicant will describe/claim an aspheric surface with inflection points as being concave, convex or planar since at least one region of the lens could be described this way). Thus, an aspheric surface or jagged surface (like a Fresnel lens shape) would satisfy the claim language. Since applicant’s language is so broad as to include any reasonable surface shape, it is not further limiting to the inherent shape of the substrate of the independent that must exist.
All other comments in the applicant’s arguments are addressed in the new rejections above or the examiner’s arguments in this section.
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 TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872