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.
Drawings
The drawings with 2 Sheets of Figs. 1-3 received on 4/24/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1-12 in the submission filed 4/24/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-12.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the provision” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with -a provision--.
Claim 7 recites “an emitter component” in line 3 and “a reflector layer” in line 3. There is sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. It is suggested to be replaced with –the emitter component—and – the reflector layer--.
Claim 9 recites “the glass film” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with -the sealed glass film--.
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.
Claims 9,10, as best understood, 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.
Regarding claims 9,10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the phrases “preferably less than 150 µm” in claim 9 and “preferably of a gold-containing metal or of gold” in claim 10 are taken to be part of the claimed invention.
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) 1,2,5-9,11,12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werdecker et al (US 7,947,335 B2) in view of Englisch et al (DE 4440104 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Werdecker teaches (fig 2) a method for producing an emitter component with a reflector (“Methods for producing a quartz glass component with reflector layer are known in which a reflector layer composed of quartz glass acting as a diffuse reflector is produced on at least part of the surface of a substrate body composed of quartz glass”, col 1, lines 5-9, cladding tube 20 for an excimer radiator, col 7, lines 36-38) including the method steps:
(a) providing a main part (dome-shaped base body 2, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, cladding tube 20, col 7, lines 36-38) with a surface that is at least partly coated with a reflector layer made of opaque glass (outer layer 3 of quartz opaque glass, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, reflector in the form of opaque coating 23, col 7, lines 40-42).
However, Werdecker does not teach
(b) compressing a surface region of the reflector layer made of opaque glass,
(c) applying a mirror-reflective reflector layer on at least one part of the compressed surface region.
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
(b) compressing a surface region of the reflector layer made of opaque glass (opaque base material 11, para 34) (“The base body is clamped in a rotating device and rotated around the axis 3 in the direction of the rotation arrow 4. The flame 7 of a hydrogen-oxygen burner 6 is directed onto the free surface 5 of the flange 1. This flame heats a local area of the surface 5, which is indicated by the reference numeral 8 in Fig. 1. In order to heat the entire free flange surface and thus produce a transparent surface layer 9”, para 33, this process is considered as thermal compression) (also “then a surface area of the opaque, porous, gas-impermeable base material forming the base body is locally heated by means of a heat source to a temperature in the range of 1,650°C to 2,200°C to convert the porous, opaque base material into transparent quartz glass is heated”, para 11)
(c) applying a mirror-reflective reflector layer on at least one part of the compressed surface region (“The transparent layer 9 creates a very smooth and non-porous layer onto which a reflective coating can be applied, for example by vapor deposition, after mechanical processing”, para 37).
Therefore, 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 opaque glass reflector of Werdecker to include compression and the mirror-reflective layer of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
Regarding Claim 2, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to Claim 1.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein the compressing of the surface region takes place by heating to a heating temperature of at least 1,100°C during a heating period of at least 5 seconds.
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein the compressing of the surface region (surface region of base body) takes place by heating to a heating temperature of at least 1,100°C during a heating period of at least 5 seconds (“then a surface area of the opaque, porous, gas-impermeable base material forming the base body is locally heated by means of a heat source to a temperature in the range of 1,650°C to 2,200°C to convert the porous, opaque base material into transparent quartz glass is heated”, para 11).
Therefore, 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 opaque glass reflector of Werdecker to include compression by heating to a heating temperature of at least 1,100°C f of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
Regarding Claim 5, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein
Therefore, 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 opaque glass reflector of Werdecker to have a thickness of at least 0.5mm of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
However, Werdecker does not teach
0.5 mm to 2 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The diameter of the combined laser beam can be in a range of values. An increase in the thickness will help in greater reflectivity while making the device bulky and a decrease in the thickness would make the reflectivity less while the device is compact. Therefore, the thickness is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness of the reflector layer to be in the range of 0.5mm to 2mm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize thickness of the reflector layer. One would have been motivated to have thickness to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired reflectance.
Regarding Claim 6, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to Claim 5.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein upon compression according to method step (b), a surface region is formed which has less than 50% of the thickness of the reflector layer made of opaque glass.
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein upon compression (“The base body is clamped in a rotating device and rotated around the axis 3 in the direction of the rotation arrow 4. The flame 7 of a hydrogen-oxygen burner 6 is directed onto the free surface 5 of the flange 1. This flame heats a local area of the surface 5, which is indicated by the reference numeral 8 in Fig. 1. In order to heat the entire free flange surface and thus produce a transparent surface layer 9”, para 33, this process is considered as thermal compression) according to method step (b), a surface region (transparent surface layer 9, para 33) is formed which has less than 50% of the thickness of the reflector layer made of opaque glass (opaque surface layer 11, para 35) (“the glazed, transparent surface layer 9 has a thickness 15 of 3 mm, while the remaining, opaque surface layer 11 on the underside of the flange has a corresponding thickness 16 of 12 mm”, para 35, 3mm/12mm =1/4 or 25 percent, hence less than 50%).
Therefore, 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 reflector of Werdecker to have surface region thickness less than 50% of the thickness of the reflector layer of Englisch for the purpose of creating a compact body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
Regarding Claim 7, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Werdecker does not teach
the provision of the main part according to method step (a) includes a measure in which an emitter component that is in use, with a reflector layer made of opaque glass, is dismantled and is reworked using the method steps (b) and (c).
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein the provision of the main part (opaque base material 11, para 34) according to method step (a) includes a measure in which the base body that is in use, with a reflector layer made of opaque glass, is dismantled and is reworked using the method steps (b) and (c) (“This base body is manufactured using the casting process described above. The base body is clamped in a rotating device and rotated around the axis 3 in the direction of the rotation arrow 4. The flame 7 of a hydrogen-oxygen burner 6 is directed onto the free surface 5 of the flange 1”, para 33)
Therefore, 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 reflector of Werdecker to dismantle the base part of Englisch for the purpose of creating a compact body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
Regarding Claim 8, Werdecker teaches (fig 2) an emitter component having a main part (dome-shaped base body 2, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, cladding tube 20, col 7, lines 36-38) whose surface is at least partly coated with a reflector (outer layer 3 of quartz opaque glass, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, reflector in the form of opaque coating 23, col 7, lines 40-42) (“Methods for producing a quartz glass component with reflector layer are known in which a reflector layer composed of quartz glass acting as a diffuse reflector is produced on at least part of the surface of a substrate body composed of quartz glass”, col 1, lines 5-9, cladding tube 20 for an excimer radiator, col 7, lines 36-38)
which comprises an inner reflector layer made of at least partially opaque glass (outer layer 3 of quartz opaque glass, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, reflector in the form of opaque coating 23, col 7, lines 40-42, fig 2).
However, Werdecker does not teach
an outer, mirror-reflective reflector layer and wherein a sealed glass film is arranged on an inner surface of the outer reflector layer
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
an outer, mirror-reflective reflector layer (“The transparent layer 9 creates a very smooth and non-porous layer onto which a reflective coating can be applied, for example by vapor deposition, after mechanical processing”, para 37) wherein a sealed glass film (“transparent layer 9”) is arranged on an inner surface of the outer reflector layer (reflective coating)
Therefore, 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 reflector of Werdecker to include outer mirror and sealed glass film of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
Regarding Claim 9, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the emitter component according to Claim 8.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein the glass film
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein
Therefore, 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 glass film of Werdecker to have a thickness of 3mm of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
However, Werdecker does not teach
less than 300 µm, preferably less than 150 µm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The diameter of the combined laser beam can be in a range of values. An increase in the thickness will help in greater reflectivity while making the device bulky and a decrease in the thickness would make the reflectivity less while the device is compact. Therefore, the thickness is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness of the reflector layer to be in the range of less than 300 µm, preferably less than 150 µm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize thickness of the reflector layer. One would have been motivated to have thickness to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired reflectance.
Regarding Claim 11, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to claim 8.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein
Werdecker and Englisch are related as components with reflectors.
Englisch teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein
Therefore, 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 opaque glass reflector of Werdecker to have a thickness of at least 0.5mm of Englisch for the purpose of creating a smooth shaped body (para 1) with high reflectivity produced in a simple manner without material waste (para 5)
However, Werdecker does not teach
0.5 mm to 2 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The diameter of the combined laser beam can be in a range of values. An increase in the thickness will help in greater reflectivity while making the device bulky and a decrease in the thickness would make the reflectivity less while the device is compact. Therefore, the thickness is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness of the reflector layer to be in the range of 0.5mm to 2mm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize thickness of the reflector layer. One would have been motivated to have thickness to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired reflectance.
Regarding Claim 12, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the emitter component according to Claim 8,
wherein the main part (dome-shaped base body 2, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, cladding tube 20, col 7, lines 36-38, fig 2Werdecker) is designed as an enveloping body for receiving a radiation emitter cladding tube 20 for an excimer radiator, col 7, lines 36-38, wherein the reflector (outer layer 3 of quartz opaque glass, col 6, lines 57-60, fig 1, reflector in the form of opaque coating 23, col 7, lines 40-42, fig 2) arranged on the outer side of the enveloping body, facing away from the radiation emitter; or
in that the main part is designed as a tile-shaped radiation emitter, wherein the reflector is arranged on a plane side of the tile.
Claim(s) 3,4,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werdecker et al (US 7,947,335 B2) in view of Englisch et al (DE 4440104 A1, of record) and further in view of Reith et al (US 2010/0117505 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to Claim 1.
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein that the mirror-reflective reflecting reflector layer is produced from a metal.
Werdecker-Englisch and Reith are related as reflectors.
Reith teaches
wherein that the mirror-reflective reflecting reflector layer is produced from a meta (“The side of the twin tube facing away from the main emission direction of the infrared radiation is coated with a gold layer, which acts as a reflector”, para 8)
Therefore, 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 mirror reflector layer of Werdecker-Englisch to include the metal of Reith for the purpose of reflectivity of greater than 95% across the entire infrared spectrum for some temperatures (para 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Werdecker-Englisch-Reith teaches the method according to Claim 3.
However, Werdecker-Englisch does not teach
wherein the mirror- reflective reflector layer is produced from a gold-containing metal or from gold
Werdecker-Englisch and Reith are related as reflectors.
Reith teaches
wherein that the mirror-reflective reflecting reflector layer is produced from a gold-containing metal or from gold (“The side of the twin tube facing away from the main emission direction of the infrared radiation is coated with a gold layer, which acts as a reflector”, para 8)
Therefore, 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 mirror reflector layer of Werdecker-Englisch to include the metal gold of Reith for the purpose of reflectivity of greater than 95% across the entire infrared spectrum for some temperatures (para 8).
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein the mirror- reflective reflector layer has a layer thickness in the range of 50 to 300 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Englisch teaches that the thickness is in a range of values. An increase in the thickness will help in greater reflectivity while making the device bulky and a decrease in the thickness would make the reflectivity less while the device is compact. Therefore, the thickness is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness to be in the range of 50 to 300 nm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize thickness of the mirror layer. One would have been motivated to have thickness to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired reflectance.
Regarding Claim 10, Werdecker-Englisch teaches the method according to Claim 8.
However, Werdecker-Englisch does not teach
wherein the mirror- reflective reflector layer consists of a metal, preferably a gold-containing metal or from gold
Werdecker-Englisch and Reith are related as reflectors.
Reith teaches
wherein that the mirror-reflective reflecting reflector layer consists of a metal, a gold-containing metal or from gold (“The side of the twin tube facing away from the main emission direction of the infrared radiation is coated with a gold layer, which acts as a reflector”, para 8)
Therefore, 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 mirror reflector layer of Werdecker-Englisch to include the metal gold of Reith for the purpose of reflectivity of greater than 95% across the entire infrared spectrum for some temperatures (para 8).
However, Werdecker does not teach
wherein the mirror- reflective reflector layer has a layer thickness in the range of 50 to 300 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Englisch teaches that the thickness is in a range of values. An increase in the thickness will help in greater reflectivity while making the device bulky and a decrease in the thickness would make the reflectivity less while the device is compact. Therefore, the thickness is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness to be in the range of 50 to 300 nm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize thickness of the mirror layer. One would have been motivated to have thickness to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired reflectance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/21/2025