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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending. Claims 11 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, and 20 remain withdrawn.
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are updated in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The term “hard” in claim 14 (“carbon-based hard material” and “an inorganic hard-masking layer”), absent any specific definition, is subjective and therefore a material with any hardness is considered to meet “hard.”
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.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavillet et al., US 20100108638 A1, in view of Dai et al., US 20150301230 A1 (both of record), with evidentiary support from OpenLearn, Table of hardness values (of record) and O’Shea et al., Diffractive Optics: Design, Fabrication, and Test, Ch. 6, SPIE, 2004 (“Diffractive Optics”).
Regarding claim 14, Gavillet discloses a structured embossing device (mold 1, Abstract, [0013], Figs. 1, 8) comprising:
A base (metal support 2, Fig. 1, 8, [0019]) comprising an outer surface (surface facing upward, Figs. 1, 8);
An adhesion layer directly on the outer surface of the base (barrier thin layer 4, Figs. 1, 8, [0021]-[0023]), the adhesion layer having a thickness in a range between 100 nm and 200 nm ([0023] discloses an overlapping thickness range of 50-500 nm such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least the overlapping portion of the thickness range in order to implement a suitable thickness for the adhesion layer with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I));
A structure-bearing layer directly on the adhesion layer (DLC thin layer 5, Figs. 1, 8, [0021], [0024]) having a thickness in a range between 1 µm and 10 µm (DLC thin layer 5 and barrier thin layer 4 together forming the coating 3 having a thickness between about 100 nm and 10 µm, [0021], with the barrier thin layer 4 having a thickness between 50-500 nm, [0022]-[0023], such that the DLC thin layer has a minimum thickness above 0 and a maximum thickness of around 9.95 µm, overlapping the claimed range, and such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least the overlapping portion of the thickness range in order to implement a suitable thickness for the structure-bearing layer with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I)), wherein the structure-bearing layer substantially comprises a material consisting of diamond-like carbon or tetrahedral amorphous carbon (diamond-like carbon layer, [0021]);
An inorganic hard-masking layer on the structure-bearing layer (hard mask 8 formed from inorganic material, shown in Fig. 8, [0036]-[0037]) having a thickness of less than 100 nm (thickness between 10-50 nm, [0036], within the claimed range); and
An embossing structuration arranged in a surface of the structure-bearing layer (pattern formed in DLC thin layer 5 by etching, Figs. 1 and 8, [0050]-[0051]), the embossing structuration traversing the hard-masking layer (Fig. 8, [0050]-[0051]), and
Wherein a surface cavity formed by the embossing structuration includes a plurality of structures (openings 6 forming nanopattern, Fig. 1, [0024]), wherein a depth of each one of the plurality of structures is between 50 nm and 10 µm ([0025] discloses an overlapping depth/height dimension of between about 5-500 nm, and [0052] discloses the openings formed by etching extending to the interface between layers 4 and 5, such that the depth/height is the same as the thickness of the DLC layer 5, which has a minimum thickness above 0 and a maximum thickness of around 9.95 µm as set forth above), a width of each one of the structures is between 100 nm and 10 µm ([0025] discloses an overlapping width dimension of between about 5-500 nm, where the mean height to width ratio is greater than 1), and the plurality of structures have a periodicity (the pattern is regular/repeating, Fig. 1, [0024]-[0026]) between 0.1 µm and 10 µm across an entire surface of the structured embossing device (where the width L of a groove is between 5 to 500 nm, [0025], and the pitch P is described in one example as 50 nm, [0026], Fig. 1, then a periodicity of L+P can range from 55 to 550 nm, overlapping the claimed range; the pattern repeating over the entire depicted surface, Fig. 1). As Gavillet discloses overlapping depth, width, and periodicity ranges for the formed structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least the overlapping portion of the ranges in order to implement suitable dimensions for the patterned surface with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Gavillet describes throughout that the mold element is “nanopatterned” (Abstract), with features on a nano- or micro-scale (e.g., [0021], [0025]) and that the structured mold can be used for producing nanopatterned objects such as antireflection dashboards presenting nanotextures, and holograms ([0056]), i.e., objects that have a particular optical effect. Gavillet is silent as to the structures being “diffractive” structures.
In this case, “diffractive” structures in an embossing tool is understood to mean embossing structures that can emboss a corresponding diffractive pattern into a given substrate. A “diffractive” structure is fundamentally a repeating groove structure. This is evidenced by Diffractive Optics, which shows that a diffractive element is a periodic structure of repeating grooves/openings (e.g., Figs. 6.1, 6.2). Since the nanopatterned, repeating groove structures of Gavillet would have been capable of forming corresponding structures having a diffractive effect (in its intended use as a mold), as evidenced by the use of the same shape for typical diffractive optical elements, then they are considered to meet “diffractive.” This configuration generally aligns with Applicant’s characterization of “micro-optic” “diffractive structures” as micro-scale openings exhibiting a regular, repeating pattern (arguments/remarks, pp. 8-9).
Gavillet discloses the base is composed of a material such as steel ([0019]), a presently exemplified base material (filed specification, [00021]). Gavillet is silent as to the outer surface of the base having a surface roughness value Ra in a range between 10 nm and 50 nm and a hardness of at least 0.3 GPa (described in the present specification as roughly equivalent to 300 Vickers, [00017]).
In the analogous art, Dai discloses the use of a stainless steel as a base material for a structured coating ([0051]), where the surface roughness Ra of the outer surface of the base material is from 0.1 nm to 50 nm ([0052]), an overlapping range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a surface roughness at least within the overlapping portion of range in order to specify a suitable surface roughness for the outer surface of the base with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the hardness of various steels, OpenLearn evidences that steels have Vickers hardness values ranging from around 140 HV to 1000 HV (Table 3), overlapping the claimed range of at least 0.3 GPa or around 300 Vickers. Accordingly, since a material and its properties are inseparable (MPEP 2112.01(II)), the steel as taught by Gavillet had a hardness value within the range of around 140 to 1000 HV, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a hardness value at least in the overlapping portion of the expected hardness range in order to specify an expected suitable hardness for the base component with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Gavillet discloses the adhesion layer being optionally composed of chromium nitride ([0023]), presently exemplified as a suitable adhesion layer material ([00020]), and as set forth above, Gavillet discloses the base being made of steel. Gavillet does not explicitly state the hardness of the adhesion layer is greater than the hardness of the outer surface of the base.
The present specification evidences that chromium nitride is harder than steel in paras. [00020]-[00021], describing the adhesion layer being, e.g., CrN, and the base made of steel being a “comparatively soft material,” where the hardness of the adhesion layer is between that of the base and the structuration-bearing layer. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01(II). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the adhesion layer being composed of chromium nitride in order to specify a suitable material type as taught by Gavillet and, in doing so, the hardness of the chromium nitride adhesion layer would have been greater than the hardness of the outer surface of the steel base.
Gavillet is silent as to the surface roughness of the structure-bearing layer and therefore as to the structure-bearing layer having a Ra roughness value of less than 100 nm.
However, the prior art structure-bearing layer is composed of the same material as claimed (diamond-like carbon, [0021]) and is formed using the same technique (CVD, PVD, [0033]) for thin film deposition as those disclosed (CVD, PVD, [00022]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected substantially the same property for the resulting Ra roughness. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." MPEP 2112 (V). When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (I). In this case, the prior art layer is formed of the same material and via the same thin film deposition technique in order to function in the same manner, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the same property in terms of average surface roughness.
Gavillet discloses the structure-bearing layer being composed of DLC (diamond-like carbon, [0021]) and the adhesion layer composed of chromium nitride ([0023], see above), but Gavillet does not explicitly state the hardness of the structure-bearing layer is greater than that of the adhesion layer.
The present specification evidences that DLC is harder than CrN in paras. [00020]-[00021], describing the structure-bearing layer being, e.g., DLC, and the adhesion layer being, e.g., CrN, where the hardness of the adhesion layer is between the hardness of the comparatively soft steel base and the extremely hard DLC structuration-baring layer. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01(II). Accordingly, the hardness of the DLC structure-bearing layer would have been greater than the hardness of the chromium nitride adhesion layer.
Regarding claim 15, modified Gavillet discloses the device of claim 14, and Gavillet teaches the ratio between the depth and the width of the diffractive structure is in a range between 0.25 and 1.2 ([0025] discloses an overlapping ratio of at least greater than 1, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least the overlapping portion of the range in order to implement suitable dimensions for the cavity structure with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Gavillet discloses the device of claim 14, and Gavillet discloses the base includes a plate (support 2 shown as relatively flat, Figs. 1 and 8, meeting a “plate” absent further definition) made of a metal ([0019]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Gavillet discloses the device of claim 14, and Gavillet discloses the surface cavity that is forming the embossing structuration is in the form of a groove or trench (hollow patterns/openings, Figs. 1 and 8, meeting either groove or trench).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavillet et al., US 20100108638 A1, in view of Dai et al., US 20150301230 A1, with evidentiary support from OpenLearn and Diffractive Optics, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mitamura, US 20150017275 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Gavillet discloses the device of claim 14, and Gavillet discloses the base includes a generally flat support made of a metal material ([0019]). Gavillet discloses the support being a flat structure meeting a plate but is silent as to the support being a cylinder.
In the analogous art, Mitamura teaches that plate and roll/drum-shaped molds, synonymous with cylinders, were known alternatives suitable for being formed to have fine pattern structures for performing molding ([0113]). Mitamura discloses that roll-shaped molds can be favorable for transferring a pattern to a large area ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Gavillet to use the form of a cylinder, instead of a plate, as taught by Mitamura, as a substitution of one known base form for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Each form has the same function of serving as a base for a multilayered mold device having fine patterned structures. Furthermore, the cylinder form would have been more useful for certain applications, such as for patterning a larger area, as taught by Mitamura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) that the prior art of record does not teach the amended features of claim 14 directed to the diffractive structures. Applicant states that the claimed diffractive structures are micro-optic diffractive structures in that they are micro-optic because their dimensions are from 50 nm to 10 um in size and they are diffractive because they exhibit a regular, repeating pattern that is consistent and measurable over the entire extent of the structured embossing device. Applicant argues that Gavillet does not teach diffractive structures and does not disclose the claimed periodicity formed by the structurations being between 0.1 and 10 um across an entire surface of the embossing device.
These arguments are not found persuasive. While Gavillet does not use the term “diffractive,” the structures produced in the embossing device have the same features as argued by Applicant in that they are dimensioned on the same micro-scale and form a regular, repeating pattern of openings over the entire depicted surface of the device. Gavillet further describes the mold being used for producing nanopatterned objects having particular optical effects, including antireflection dashboards and holograms ([0056]). The additional evidentiary reference has been applied to show that the formed geometry of the nano/micro-patterned surface corresponds to a standard “diffractive” configuration. As set forth above, Gavillet further discloses a periodicity overlapping and therefore rendering obvious the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754