DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18309925 application filed May 1, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on November 26, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claim 20 acknowledged.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites the term “nanoparticle”. According to Britanica, the term nanoparticle means “nanoparticle, ultrafine unit with dimensions measured in nanometers (nm; 1 nm = 10−9 meter). Nanoparticles exist in the natural world and are also created as a result of human activities. Because of their submicroscopic size, they have unique material characteristics, and manufactured nanoparticles may find practical applications in a variety of areas, including medicine, engineering, catalysis, and environmental remediation”. Thus, for the purpose of examining, the term nanoparticle will be interpreted as a particle of nanoscale to submicroscopic size, i.e. 1-1000 nm.
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.
Claim 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. --Claim 1 recites “the surface features help to create a plurality of regions adjacent each one of the surface features where the additional quantity of metallic material is absent” (emphasis added). The claim fails to recite the manner of the help that the surface features provide. One of skill in the art would not be clear how to create the surface features that help create a plurality of regions adjacent each one of the surface features where the additional quantity of metallic material is absent without knowing the manner of the help to be provided.
Claims 2-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hart et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20150174625), hereinafter “Hart”:--Claims 1, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19: Hart teaches a method of texturize a substrate, comprising(i) providing a transparent substrate 50, such as silicate, silicon carbide,… (abstract, [0063-0067]);(ii) forming a mask 61 on the substrate 50, the mask comprises a plurality of particles (Fig. 1A);(iii) etching the substrate through the mask 61 to form a textured surface comprising a plurality of micro-textured hillocks having lateral dimension about 10-1000 nm on the surface (Fig. 1B);(iv) depositing an ultrathin metal film 62, such as a film of copper, Au, Ag,…having a thickness 1-15 nm, on the textured surface ([0053]), then heating the substrate to dewet the substrate and form a plurality of nano-size islands 71a ([0055-0058], Fig. 1D and 1E);(v) etching the substrate using the islands 71a as a mask to form a plurality of nano-structures having lateral dimension about 10-500 nm on the surface ([0060-0061], Fig. 1F-1G). Hart further teaches that the micro-textured hillocks may have a variety of shapes, such as cones, pyramids, cylinders, tapered cylinders, bumps, mesas, peaks and other similarly-shaped features; and the nano-structure may have a variety of shapes, such as cones, pyramids, cylinders, helices, tapered cylinders, toroids, and the like ([0040]), and that “while the various schematic illustrations of FIGS. 1C and 1G depict one set of nano-textured topographical features disposed on one set of micro-textured topographical features, it is possible for multiple sets of nano-textured and/or micro-textured topographical features to be disposed on the substrate and/or on each other” ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to repeat steps (iv) and (v) a plurality of times to further texturize the substrate. Thus the texturing method may further comprise(vi) optionally forming a second mask comprises a plurality of particles on the substrate;(vii) optionally etching the substrate through the second mask to form a second set of micro-textured hillocks on the substrate;(viii) optionally depositing a second ultrathin metal film on the textured surface then heating the substrate to dewet the substrate and form a second set of plurality of nano-size islands.(ix) optionally etching the substrate using the second set of islands as a mask to form a second set of plurality of nano-structures on the surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to perform the etching in step (v) at an angle different than the forming the second ultrathin metal film in step (viii) and the etching the substrate using the second set of islands as a mask in step (ix). The nano-structures impart birefringence to the substrate, as taught by Applicant in claim 1. It is noted that steps (iv), (v), (viii) and (ix) read on the four steps recited in claim 1, respectively.--Claims 2, 4: Fig. 1F shows that the etching in step (v) is performed at an angle normal to the substrate, and forms a vertical rod extending normal to the substrate. Since the etching is performed using the nano-sized islands as a mask, it would form cylindrical-shape features.--Claim 3: Since the depositing a second ultrathin metal film in step (viii) is on a surface that have convex and concave features, at least a portion of the deposition is at an angle that is on a sidewall of the features.--Claims 5, 6: It is noted that the nano-structures form convex and concave features, thus would form linear, dash-like voids, as taught by Applicant.--Claims 9, 13: Hart teaches that the etching may be an RIE etching, such as using high-energy ions ([0060, 0083]).
Claim 8, 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hart, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20130295712), hereinafter “Chen”:--Claims 8, 11: Hart teaches the invention as above. Hart further teaches that multiple sets of nano-textured and/or micro-textured topographical features may be disposed on the substrate and/or on each other ([0041]), and that the ultrathin metal film 62 may be other metals such as Ni, Ag, Au, etc. ([0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to also use the metal for the particles of the mask 61. Fig. 1B and 1D show that the etching the substrate through the mask 61 to form a textured surface comprising a plurality of hillocks is in a different angle than the depositing an ultrathin metal film 62, especially on the side of the hillocks, and at different angle than the etching the substrate using the islands 71a as a mask to form a plurality of convex and concave features. It is also noted that since the forming a mask 61 on the substrate 50, etching the substrate through the mask 61, depositing an ultrathin metal film 62 then heating the substrate to dewet the substrate and form a plurality of nano-size islands 71a, and the etching the substrate using the islands 71a are the same as taught by Applicant in claim 1 and Hart fails to teach the feature the particles are metallic nanoparticles. Chen, also directed to a method of texturing a surface, teaches that the texturing may comprise depositing metal nanoparticles on the surface by spin coating ([0076]), then etching the surface using the nanoparticle as a mask ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to also use metal nanoparticles for the particles of the mask 61 in the invention of Hart because Chen teaches that it would be effective. It is noted that in this section, steps (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) read on the four steps recited in claim 1, respectively.
Claims 10 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reichmann et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20240347697), hereinafter “Reichmann”:--Claims 10, 14, 15: Hart teaches the invention as above. Hart further teaches that the etching may be an RIE etching, such as using high-energy ions ([0060, 0083]). Hart fails to teach that the etching may use a reactive ion beam. Reichmann, also directed to a method of texturing a substrate, teaches that the texturing may be perform by using plasma etching or reactive ion beam etching ([0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a reactive ion beam as an equivalent substitution for the reactive ion etching, as taught by Reichmann, for the etching in the invention of Hart.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. 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.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713