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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 12, 15 and 24 are objected to because of informalities.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the word: “abating”. It is believed that this word was intended to be “abutting”, similar to Claims 9 and 10.
Claims 12 and 15 recite the phrase: “the index”. It is believed that this phrase was intended to recite: “the refractive index”.
Claim 24 recites the acronym “ICP” without first reciting the full term that it represents. It is believed that Claim 24 should recite “inductively coupled plasma (ICP)” based on paragraph [0034] on page 12 of Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the phrase: “the abutting layer”. However, this term lacks antecedent basis because there is no earlier-recited “abutting layer” in Claim 10 or in Claim 1, from which Claim 10 depends. Thus, it is unclear whether this phrase is intended to be the first instance of the recited component, or is intended to refer to a different earlier-recited component. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “an abutting layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, 18-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellman et al., US 2018/0011225 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Bellman discloses: A protective film for an optically transmissive substrate, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an adhesion layer formed on a surface of the substrate (optical coating 120 disposed on a first opposing major surface [upper surface] 112 of substrate 110, wherein the optical coating 120 may comprise a lower region of anti-reflective coating 130 having a first low RI [refractive index] layer 130A; see paragraphs [0014], [0061], [0072], [0073] and FIGS. 1-8, 25-28 of Bellman, but see especially FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
a stress grading intermediate layer formed over the adhesion layer (one of the low RI layers 130A above the first low RI layer but below the scratch-resistant layer 150; paragraphs [0073], [0084] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
a protective layer formed over the stress grading intermediate layer (the scratch-resistant layer 150 is above the low RI layers 130A of the lower region of anti-reflective coating 130; paragraph [0084] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman); and
an anti-reflective layer formed over the protective layer (upper region of anti-reflective layer 130 is above scratch-resistant layer 150; FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
wherein:
the adhesion layer includes an oxide containing layer having refractive index n smaller than 1.65 (the low RI layers may have a refractive index of about 1.3 to 1.7, and suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., the first low RI layer 130A formed on the substrate 110] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49; paragraphs [0075], [0077] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
the stress grading intermediate layer consists of an oxide containing layer having refractive index n lower than refractive index of the protective layer (suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., one of the low RI layers 130A above the first low RI layer 130A] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49, which is lower than the refractive index of the scratch-resistant layer 150 which may have a refractive index of about 1.75 or 1.8 or 1.9 and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N [i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride]; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0085]-[0087], [0090], [0091] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman);
the protective layer has a thickness of at least three times the stress grading intermediate layer and refractive index higher than the stress grading intermediate layer (scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may be significantly thicker than individual layers of the anti-reflective layer 130, e.g., more than 10 times the thickness, and may have a refractive index of about 1.75 or 1.8 and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N [i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride], wherein such refractive index is higher than SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0084]-[0093] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman);
the anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of sublayers, wherein at least one sublayer has a refractive index higher than said protective layer and at least one sublayer has a refractive index lower than said protective layer (the upper region of anti-reflective layer 130 [above scratch-resistant layer 150] may comprise alternating low RI layers and high RI layers, wherein the low RI layers may have a refractive index of about 1.3 to 1.7, such as SiO2 [silicon dioxide; refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49], and wherein the high RI layers may have a refractive index of about 1.85 to 2.5, such as AlON [aluminum oxynitride; refractive index of approximately 2.0], wherein the scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may have a refractive index of about 1.75 or 1.8 and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N [i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride]; FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0084]-[0093] and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 2, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the adhesion layer comprises silicon and oxide (suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., the first low RI layer 130A formed on the substrate 110] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide]; paragraphs [0075], [0077] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 3, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses: wherein the adhesion layer further comprises aluminum (suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., the first low RI layer 130A formed on the substrate 110] include) silicon aluminum oxynitride, e.g., a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N, which may be written as SiuAlvOxNy to indicate that the relative content of each of the four elements may be adjusted for at least the reason of achieving a desired or required refractive index; paragraphs [0077], [0086], [0090] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 4, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the protective layer comprises AlSiON (scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N, i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride, or aluminum silicon oxynitride, which may also written as SiuAlvOxNy or simply SiAlON or AlSiON; see paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0084]-[0093] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman, but see especially paragraph [0086] of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 5, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein the protective layer has refractive index of from about 1.65 to 1.70 (scratch-resistant layer 150 may comprise multiple sub-layers or single layers that exhibit a refractive index gradient such as those described in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 14/262,224, published as U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0334006 A1 of Adib et al., wherein the Adib reference discloses scratch-resistant layers comprising composites of Si, Al, O, and N, and having an exemplary refractive index of 1.7, further noting that the refractive index may be within about 0.05 to 0.2 of the refractive index of the substrate, and further providing an example gradient refractive index of 1.51 to 2.0; see paragraph [0086] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman, and see paragraphs [0101], [0142], [0143] of Adib).
Regarding Claim 6, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the protective layer comprises two sublayers, a first sublayer comprising AlSiON and a second sublayer comprising SiON (scratch-resistant layer 150 may comprise multiple sub-layers or single layers that exhibit a refractive index gradient such as those described in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 14/262,224, published as U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0334006 A1 of Adib et al., wherein the Adib reference discloses scratch-resistant layers having an aluminum content gradient; see paragraph [0086] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman, and see paragraphs [0014], [0084], [0090], [0101], [0108], [0142], [0143] and FIG. 7 of Adib).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a sublayer abating the protective layer has a refractive index higher than the protective layer (the anti-reflective layer stacks 130 which are above and below scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may comprise the alternating low RI layers and high RI layers in either of an L/H/L/H pattern or an H/L/H/L pattern, and thus a high RI layer may be adjacent to [i.e., abutting] scratch-resistant layer 150; and as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1, the high RI layer may have a refractive index of about 1.85 to 2.5, and the scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may have a refractive index of 1.75 or 1.8; paragraphs [0073], [0074] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 11, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the transmittance through said protective film and said substrate is higher than the transmittance through said substrate without said film (substrate 110 may exhibit an average light transmittance over the optical wavelength regime of about 85%, whereas the coated article may have transmittance of 87% or greater; Abstract and paragraphs [0061], [0125], [0163] and FIG. 24 of Bellman; the Office further notes that optical coating 120 is an anti-reflective coating and thus necessarily functions to increase transmittance through a substrate which has the coating thereon).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the refractive index of said adhesion layer substantially matches the index of a top surface of said optically transmissive substrate (the lower portion of the anti-reflective coating 130 may comprise gradient layers, such as lower gradient layer 170 having a refractive index which substantially matches the refractive index of the substrate 110 at the location where it touches the substrate 110; paragraphs [0090]-[0092] and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 13, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the refractive index of said adhesion layer is not more than 0.005 higher than refractive index of said substrate and is not more than 0.005 lower than refractive index of said substrate (lower gradient layer 170 may have a refractive index which starts as the refractive index of the substrate 110 in portions which contact the substrate 110 and then increases with distance from the substrate 110; additionally, the graphs of FIGS. 26-28 of Bellman show the refractive index of gradient layer 170 continuously decreasing to the left until it meets and matches the refractive index of the substrate 110 [contrast this with the discontinuous jump in refractive index at a right side of upper gradient layer 160]; see paragraphs [0090]-[0092] and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 18, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein said stress grading layer comprises a film having film porosity of at least 10% (refractive index gradient using porosity, such as described in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 14/262,224, published as U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0334006 A1 of Adib et al., wherein the Adib reference discloses porosities of 5% to 75%, wherein an average porosity may be 20% to 35%; see paragraphs [0077], [0086], [0090]-[0092] and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman, and see paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0092], [0109] of Adib).
Regarding Claim 19, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the stress grading layer comprises AlSiON (suitable materials for use in the first low RI layer [e.g., one of the low RI layers 130A above the first low RI layer 130A] include SiuAlvOxNy, i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride, or aluminum silicon oxynitride, or simply SiAlON or AlSiON; paragraph [0077] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Regarding Claim 20, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the stress grading layer comprises a material sputter deposited at a pressure of at least 10mT and having a thermal conductivity value k < 0.0001 (Bellman discusses the use of several methods of layer formation, including sputtering (see, e.g., paragraphs [0065], [0143], [0164], [0168] of Bellman), however, Claim 20 is drawn to a device or article, rather than a method, and thus the inclusion of process steps renders this claim a product-by-process claim, whereby even though the claim may be limited by and defined by the process, a determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and thus, even if a prior art product is made by a different process, if the resulting prior art product is substantially identical, the prior art product will anticipate the claimed product; see MPEP § 2113, Sections I and II, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698; 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 25, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the adhesion layer contains no nitrogen and has a refractive index smaller than 1.5 (suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., the first low RI layer 130A formed on the substrate 110] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49; paragraphs [0075], [0077] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Regarding Claims 1, 15 and 16, in an alternate characterization of the layers of Bellman, Bellman discloses: A protective film for an optically transmissive substrate, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an adhesion layer formed on a surface of the substrate (an optical coating 120 may comprise an anti-reflective coating 130 [e.g., lower region of anti-reflective coating 130] having a pattern of high, medium, and low refractive index layers H/M/L/H/M/L, wherein the first M layer [medium refractive index layer] may be identified as the claimed “substrate” and the first L layer [low refractive index layer] may be identified as the claimed adhesion layer; see paragraphs [0014], [0061], [0072]-[0074] and FIGS. 1-8, 25-28 of Bellman, but see especially paragraph [0074] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
a stress grading intermediate layer formed over the adhesion layer (the second M layer [medium refractive index layer] in the H/M/L/H/M/L pattern of anti-reflective coating 130 may be identified as the claimed “stress grading intermediate layer”; paragraph [0074] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
a protective layer formed over the stress grading intermediate layer (the scratch-resistant layer 150 is above the low RI layers 130A of the lower region of anti-reflective coating 130; paragraph [0084] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman); and
an anti-reflective layer formed over the protective layer (upper region of anti-reflective layer 130 is above scratch-resistant layer 150; FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
wherein:
the adhesion layer includes an oxide containing layer having refractive index n smaller than 1.65 (the low RI layers [low refractive index layers] may have a refractive index of about 1.3 to 1.7, and suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., the first low RI layer 130A formed on the substrate 110] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49; paragraphs [0075], [0077] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
the stress grading intermediate layer consists of an oxide containing layer having refractive index n lower than refractive index of the protective layer (suitable materials for use in the low RI layers [e.g., one of the low RI layers 130A above the first low RI layer 130A] include SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49, which is lower than the refractive index of the scratch-resistant layer 150 which may have a refractive index of about 1.75 and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N [i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride]; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0085]-[0087], [0090], [0091] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman);
the protective layer has a thickness of at least three times the stress grading intermediate layer and refractive index higher than the stress grading intermediate layer (scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may be significantly thicker than individual layers of the anti-reflective layer 130, e.g., more than 10 times the thickness, and may have a refractive index of about 1.8 or more and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index or “high” refractive index, wherein such refractive index is higher than SiO2 [silicon dioxide] having a refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0084]-[0093] and TABLES 1-3, 6, 7 and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman, but see especially paragraphs [0075], [0087] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman);
the anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of sublayers, wherein at least one sublayer has a refractive index higher than said protective layer and at least one sublayer has a refractive index lower than said protective layer (the upper region of anti-reflective layer 130 [above scratch-resistant layer 150] may comprise alternating low RI layers and high RI layers, wherein the low RI layers may have a refractive index of about 1.3 to 1.7, such as SiO2 [silicon dioxide; refractive index of approximately 1.48 or 1.49], and wherein the high RI layers may have a refractive index of about 1.85 to 2.5, such as AlON [aluminum oxynitride; refractive index of approximately 2.0], wherein the scratch-resistant layer 150 [protective layer] may have a refractive index of about 1.75 or 1.8 and may comprise a material having a “medium” refractive index, such as AlN and/or SiOxNy, or a composition gradient of Si, Al, O and N [i.e., silicon aluminum oxynitride]; FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman; paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0084]-[0093] and FIGS. 7, 8, 25-28 of Bellman); and
Claim 15: wherein the refractive index of said stress grading layer substantially matches the index of a top surface of said optically transmissive substrate (the first M layer and the second M layer are both M layers in the repeating pattern [H/M/L/H/M/L] of anti-reflective coating 130, and thus may have the same refractive index; paragraph [0074] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman); and
Claim 16: wherein the refractive index of said stress grading layer is not more than 0.005 higher than said substrate and is not more than 0.005 lower than said substrate (the first M layer and the second M layer are both M layers in the repeating pattern [H/M/L/H/M/L] of anti-reflective coating 130, and thus may have the same refractive index; paragraph [0074] and FIGS. 7, 8 of Bellman).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neuffer, US 2012/0081792 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Neuffer discloses: A protective film for an optically transmissive substrate, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an adhesion layer formed on a surface of the substrate (Al2O3 layer 26’ is formed on a surface of hardcoat 20 [which may be identified as the claimed “substrate”] or on a surface of the combined lens element 12 and hardcoat 20 [which may also be identified as the claimed “substrate”]; FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
a stress grading intermediate layer formed over the adhesion layer (SiO2 layer 24’ is formed over Al2O3 layer 26’; FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
a protective layer formed over the stress grading intermediate layer (Al2O3 layer 26’’’ is formed over SiO2 layer 24’; FIG. 3 of Neuffer); and
an anti-reflective layer formed over the protective layer (TiO2 layer 18, Al2O3 layer 26’’’’, and SiO2 layer 24’’’’ are formed over Al2O3 layer 26’’’; FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
wherein:
the adhesion layer includes an oxide containing layer having refractive index n smaller than 1.65 (Al2O3 layer 26’ comprises a layer of aluminum oxide [Al2O3], which is considered a medium refractive index layer and may have a refractive index which is more than 1.5 and as high as 1.65; paragraphs [0020], [0035], [0055] and FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
the stress grading intermediate layer consists of an oxide containing layer having refractive index n lower than refractive index of the protective layer (SiO2 layer 24’ consists of a silicon oxide [SiO2] layer, which is considered a low refractive index layer [refractive index of 1.5 or less] and thus has a lower refractive index than the aluminum oxide of the Al2O3 layer 26’’’ [medium refractive index layer]; paragraph [0021] and FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
the protective layer has a thickness of at least three times the stress grading intermediate layer and refractive index higher than the stress grading intermediate layer (Al2O3 layer 26’’’ has a thickness of 115 nm, which is more than three times the thickness of the SiO2 layer 24’ having a thickness of 25 nm, and as explained above, Al2O3 is a medium refractive index material and thus has a higher refractive index than SiO2 which is a low refractive index material; paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0035], [0055] and FIG. 3 of Neuffer);
the anti-reflective layer comprises a plurality of sublayers, wherein at least one sublayer has a refractive index higher than said protective layer and at least one sublayer has a refractive index lower than said protective layer (the set of layers TiO2 layer 18, Al2O3 layer 26’’’’, and SiO2 layer 24’’’’ comprise TiO2 layer 18, which has a higher refractive index than the Al2O3 layer 26’’’, and comprise SiO2 layer 24’’’’, which has a lower refractive index than the Al2O3 layer 26’’’, wherein TiO2 is a high refractive index material having a refractive index greater than 1.65; paragraphs [0018]-[0021], [0035], [0055] and FIG. 3 of Neuffer).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Neuffer discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein at least one sublayer of the anti-reflective layer comprises a dual-layer structure including a main layer and a thinner grading layer having a refractive index between that of the main layer and the abutting layer (SiO2 layer 24’’’’ and Al2O3 layer 26’’’’ may be identified as the claimed “dual-layer structure”, wherein SiO2 layer 24’’’’ corresponds to the claimed “main layer”, Al2O3 layer 26’’’’ corresponds to the claimed “thinner grading layer”, and TiO2 layer 18 corresponds to the claimed “abutting layer”, wherein Al2O3 layer 26’’’’ is thinner than SiO2 layer 24’’’’, and wherein Al2O3 layer 26’’’’ [medium refractive index material] has a refractive index between that of SiO2 layer 24’’’’ [low refractive index material] and TiO2 layer 18 [high refractive index material]; paragraphs [0018]-[0021], [0035], [0055] and FIG. 3 of Neuffer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman in view of Takahashi, US 2016/0306194 A1.
Regarding Claims 14 and 17, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of film stress, such that: wherein a thin film stress of said adhesion layer and a thin film stress of said grading layer is less than 100mPa.
However, it has been held that 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takahashi is related to Bellman with respect to multi-layer anti-reflection and protective coatings, and Takahashi teaches that when a large number of layers are utilized, cracks may be generated due to influence of radiation heat during film formation, or film stress, thus resulting in poor durability (see, e.g., paragraph [0007] of Takahashi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a low thin film stress for the layers of Bellman in order to avoid a durability problem due to film stress, as taught in paragraph [0007] of Takahashi.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman in view of Zong, US 2024/0287674 A1.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, as best understood, Bellman discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses that substrate 110 may be acid polished or otherwise treated to remove or reduce the effect of surface flaws (see, e.g., paragraph [0141] of Bellman). Nonetheless, Bellman does not appear to explicitly disclose further details of the cleaning or treatment process, such that: wherein the substrate comprises a reduced interface energy with said adhesion layer provided by energetic bombardment prior to adhesion layer deposition, and wherein said reduced interface energy provided by energetic bombardment prior to adhesion layer deposition comprises ICP employing a carrier gas including N2.
Zong is related to Bellman with respect to protective coatings on glass substrate.
Zong teaches: wherein the substrate comprises a reduced interface energy with said adhesion layer provided by energetic bombardment prior to adhesion layer deposition, and wherein said reduced interface energy provided by energetic bombardment prior to adhesion layer deposition comprises ICP employing a carrier gas including N2 (bombardment surface cleaning of substrate using nitrogen and ICP source; paragraphs [0081], [0100]-[0109] of Zong).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the cleaning process of Zong for the substrate of Bellman because such process helps to improve the binding force between substrate and film, i.e., provides a highly active surface and thus an excellent substrate for subsequent film formation, as taught in paragraphs [0081], [0103] of Zong.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include 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.
With respect to Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22, although the prior art discloses various protective films for optically transmissive substrates, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
58
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
156
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image4.png
190
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image5.png
58
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image6.png
58
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872