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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 1 defines R as “the smallest geometric radius of a circle enclosing the two neighboring nano particles.” The specification defines R as “the smallest geometric radius of a circle enclosing the particle.” See paragraphs [0010] and [0013] of the specification as ordinally filed. The discrepancy between the specification and claims renders the claims indefinite as to the actual definition of “R”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret claim 1 as written, i.e., R is “the smallest geometric radius of a circle enclosing the two neighboring nano particles.”
Moreover, the phrase “the smallest geometric radius of a circle enclosing the two neighboring nano particles” is deemed indefinite as to the relationship between the two particles. This limitation could mean that R is measured between the two particles when the particles are immediately adjacent each other (i.e., d = 0). The limitation could also mean R is measured when the two particles are positioned on the substrate, i.e., R = d (the distance between particles) + diameter of the particle. For purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be employed, i.e., R is the smallest geometric radius of a circle enclosing the two neighboring nano particles, when the particles are touching and d = 0.
Claim 2 states the surface coating comprises a “second layer arranged between the substrate and the first layer of nanoparticles.” This limitation indicates the mandatory inclusion of the second layer. Claim 2 subsequently provides a thickness for the second layer, h, with a lower limit that is greater than or equal to zero. If the thickness is zero, the layer would not be present. Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite as to whether the claim requires the presence of the second layer or not. For purposes of examination, the second layer will be presumed to be optional.
Claims 3-10 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 2015/0064405 A1). Koch et al. discloses a substrate having a nanoparticulate monolayer applied thereto. See the abstract, and Figure 1A. The nanoparticulate monolayer functions as an antireflective coating. See the title. In other words, the monolayer changes the visual appearance of the substrate by reducing the reflectivity of the substrate.
The particles are randomly applied. See paragraph [0037].
Koch et al. discloses an average interparticle distance, p, but fails to disclose a range for d as recited in claim 1 of 2R ≤ d ≤ max (λ/np). For the reasons that follow, Koch et al. teaches a range for the interparticle distance, p, that results in a coating having overlapping ranges of d with claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koch et al. and the instant invention define terms in different but similar terms. Below is a summary of the different variables according to Koch et al. and the instant invention:
From these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the following relationship from the definitions of Koch et al. and the instant invention.
dinstant invention = pKoch – 2r (or DKoch).
PNG
media_image2.png
402
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Koch et al. shows simulations in Figure 4C. The lowest reflectivity is shown at the bottom:
At point A, the coating has a particle diameter (D) of approximately 110 nm and a lattice pitch (p) of about 110 nm. The result is an interparticle distance, d, in terms of the instant invention of zero:
At point A, dinstant invention = pKoch (110 nm) – DKoch (110 nm) = 0
At point B, the coating has a particle diameter (D) of approximately 200 nm and a lattice pitch (p) of about 500 nm, and dinstant invention = pKoch (500 nm) – DKoch (200 nm) = 300 nm.
Thus, Koch et al. suggests a lower limit of zero for the d and an upper end of 300nm in Figure 4C.
For a particle size of 100 nm, claim 1 recites a lower limit for the interparticle distance of 100 nm.
The upper limit for d in claim 1 is defined as max (λ/np) where λ is the maximum visible wavelength, i.e., 740 nm (see paragraph [0044] of the specification as orginally filed) and np is the index of refraction of the medium in which the particles are embedded. Koch et al. teaches a binder that fully covers the particles (i.e., g = d)(paragraph [0069]), and teaches an index of refraction of approximately 1.5 for the binder (paragraph [0070]). The result is a maximum interparticle distance, d, of 740 nm / 1.5 = 490 nm.
So, Koch et al. suggests a range for d of 0 to 300 nm, which overlaps the claim 1 range for d of 100 to 480 nm for a particle size of 100 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected over Koch et al. as reciting an optional layer (i.e., h = 0) between the substrate and the coating.
As to claim 5, Koch et al. teaches the particles are embedded in a binder matrix having a refractive index, ng, of 1.3 to 1.8. See paragraph [0069].
As to claim 6, Koch et al. does not teach p in accordance with the formula recited in claim 6. However, Koch et al. teaches the coating layer has areas in which no particles are present. See paragraph [0090]. Moreover, Koch et al. teaches a fill factor that overlaps the fill factor recited in claim 10 (see below). For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the coating of Koch et al. to have a similar p value.
As to claim 7, Koch et al. teaches the particles have a refractive index, np, of 1.3 to 1.8. See paragraph [0069].
As to claim 9, Koch et al. teaches the particles may be in the form of spheres in paragraph [0016].
As to claim 10, Koch et al. the coating may have a particle density of 1 to 100 particles per microns squared. See paragraph [0036]. For spherical particles of 100 nm, the corresponding surface fill factor = 0.785% (at 1 particle per square micron, one, 100 nm spherical particle has a corresponding cross section area of πr2 = π (D/2)2 = π(0.100/2)2 = 0.00785 µm2. 0.00785 µm2 / 1 µm2 = 0.785%). At 100 particles per micron2, the corresponding fill factor is 78.5% (100 x 100 nm spherical particles has a corresponding cross section area of 100 x 0.00785 µm2 = 0.785 µm / 1 µm2 = 78.5 %). Thus, Koch et al. suggests overlapping ranges of fill factor with the rand of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 2015/0064405 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asahi et al. (US 2017/0015087 A1).
Koch et al. renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Koch et al. teaches the substrate may have an index of refraction 1.3 to 1.8. See paragraph [0069].
Koch et al. differs from claim 4 by failing to teach the substrate is Si, AsGa, quartz, silica or polymers.
Asahi et al. teaches antireflection films may be applied to plastic substrates. See paragraph [0161]-[0162].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided an antireflection coating in accordance with Koch et al. on a plastic (i.e., polymer) substrate as suggested by Asahi et al. The rationale for doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.A.
Koch et al. differs from claim 8 by failing to teach the nanoparticles are formed from silver, gold, aluminum, silicon, germanium, titanium dioxide, polymer or silicon nitride.
Asahi et al. teaches forming antireflection films by applying a monolayer of metal oxide particles to a substrate. The particles may be metal oxide particles such as titanium dioxide. See paragraph [0115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided an antireflection coating in accordance with Koch et al. with titanium dioxide particles as suggested by Asahi et al. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to have been obvious to have employed a known material (i.e., titanium dioxide particles) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (an antireflection film). See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784