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
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to EP22186404.4, with a filing date of 07/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
An Information Disclosure Statement was/were provided, dated 12/12/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application, Claims 1, 4-9 and 11-12 were objected to, and Claim 1-12 were rejected. Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 12/05/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 9-12, filed 01/27/2027, with respect to Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note: The Examiner will address applicable arguments for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
The claimed method, as discussed throughout the specification is for producing a substrate
precursor having a mass of more than 50 kg, comprising a TiO2-SiO2 mixed glass. Paragraphs
[0003]-[0004] of the Printed Publication, TiO2-SiO2 mixed glass substrates are used for devices
working in extreme ultraviolet light (EUV), a reflective not transmissive optic, where TiO2-SiO2
mixed glass is characterized by a thermal history of the glass and some other parameters but
primarily depends on the titanium dioxide concentration. The claimed method results in the
production of EUV substrates, which are used to produce EUV mirrors. The Blankenbecler
reference has no applicability to EUV substrates for mirrors and reflective optics.
The method of Blankenbecler, which describes how a number of planar glass plates, which have
different doping levels, are assembled. This is followed by a heating process. Diffusion takes
place during this heating process, and Figures 2, 3, and 4 of the Blankenbecler reference show
the change in the refractive index over time as a result of the heating process. This has no
applicability to the claimed method, in that diffusion plays no role in producing an EUV
substrate.
As the claimed method involves aspects of titanium apportionment and spatial titanium
profile , Blankenbecler fails to teach doping with titanium, and therefore fails to teach the
required specific recitations in the claim relating to titanium profile. Further, refractive index
is not relevant to EUV substrates.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner replies that,
In that the references (Blankenbecler) fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted
that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the combination alleged in the
Office Action fails to achieve the technical effect of the claimed invention ) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37
CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks
the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the
objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or
objections. Hence, the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler is not relied upon to teach diffusion. Blankenbecler is relied upon to teach a
stacking, or ordering, of glass articles based upon a starting spatial distribution of
concentration of a common constituent in each plate, where the starting spatial distribution
of concentration is converted to a property or properties. Hence the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler is not relied upon to teach doping with titanium. Fujinoki979 is relied upon to
teach doping with titanium and providing individual pieces of glass that need to be arranged
in a certain order based on titanium distribution. As the Applicant has noted, different
titanium concentration (distribution/profile/apportionment per the claims) provide different
values of coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). Blankenbecler is relied upon to provide a
method to stack glass articles in an optimum arrangement where the glass articles have
different material compositions, where the property used to define the different material
composition is refractive index. While the claims use CTE to define titanium distribution,
the claims must be viewed on the whole as a PHOSITA. A PHOSITA would know that CTE and
index of refraction are both a measure of material concentration and that an increase in TiO2
concentration in a glass increases both refractive index and CTE of the glass (i.e. there is a
direct relationship between titanium concentration and both refractive index and CTE).
While the metric used by Blankenbecler may differ from the claims, the method of
Blankenbecler and the claims both use a measure that targets material
composition/distribution in the glass articles. Regarding refractive index is irrelevant for
EUV substrates, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
Hence, the argument is mute.
Overall, the Rejection to Claim 1 is maintained. Hence, the rejections of dependent
claims 2-12 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of JP 2006240979A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 07/14/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the
Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Fujinoki et. al. (herein “Fujinoki979”), and in
further view of WO2013084978A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 07/14/2023, English Abstract only)
(English language translation of the Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Ezaki et.
al. (herein “Ezaki”) ”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,582,626 by Blankenbecler (herein
“Blankenbecler”) and in further view of and in further view of PGPUB 20140206524 by
Maida et. al. (herein “Maida) and in further view of JP 2007186348A (as submitted in the IDS dated
07/014/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the Description provided herewith
and referenced herein) by Fujinoki et. al. (herein “Fujinoki348”),and in further view of JP 5287271B2
(English language translation of the Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Mitsumori
et. al. (herein “Mitsumori”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujinoki979 teaches:
A method for producing:
a substrate precursor; Page 1 lines 15-16, “A method for producing a…silica-titania glass suitable for a mirror substrate or a reflective mask substrate…”
comprising:
a TiO2-SiO2 mixed glass; Page 2 line 22, “A first example of the method for producing a homogeneous silica-titania glass of the present invention…”
comprising the steps of:
introducing a silicon dioxide raw material and a titanium dioxide raw material into a flame; Page 3 lines 24-25,” As shown in FIG. 1, first, a silica raw material and a titania raw material are introduced into an oxyhydrogen flame...”, where silica is synonymous with silicon dioxide and titania is synonymous with titanium dioxide.
producing a glass body having a titanium dioxide content of 3 wt.% up to 10 wt.%; Page 5 lines 38, 42, “In the method of the present invention, the composition of the silica-titania glass body is not particularly limited but preferably comprises titania and SiO2, and the titania concentration is… more preferably 8% by mass...”
the glass body comprising:
a macroscopic, production-related titanium profile; Page 4, lines 38-40, “…the growth edge is covered with a flame, but due to the temperature distribution in the flame, the concentration distribution of silica and titania is likely to occur in the growth surface…”
a microscopic, production-related layer structure; Page 1 lines 45-46, “…the growth streaks accompanying the rotation of the substrate during glass growth form layered striae”.
dividing the glass body into a plurality of rod-like glass body portions; Fig. 4 (original) Fig. 13 step 104, Page 2 line 41, Page 7 lines 35-37, “...In the cutting step, it is preferable to divide the silica-titania glass body into 3 or more and 10 or less”, “A fan-shaped rod-shaped glass body is cut out (step 102), …and formed into a rod-shaped glass body…”
Fujinoki979 fails to teach spatially measuring the titanium profile in each of the glass body portions. In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for EUV, Ezaki teaches measuring a “from a central portion of a titania-silica glass substrate… from the central portion of the substrate surface to a corner portion of the central portion of the substrate surface… an electron probe microanalyzer (Manufactured by JEOL Ltd.) TiO 2 concentration was measured” (Page 8 lines 59-60, Page 9 lines 1-2). Ezaki discloses the claimed invention except for performing the measurement on each of the glass body portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the measurements of Ezaki on the glass body portions of the combination. One would have been motivated to measure the glass body portions for the purpose of obtaining maximum and minimum TiO2 concentrations, as noted by Ezaki (Page 9 lines 2-3), which could be useful for the purposes of modeling. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Fujinoki979 teaches a relationship between titania concentration homogeneity via refractive index homogeneity (Page 10 lines 57-58) the combination fails to teach wherein the step of measuring comprises the following steps of:
predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor; providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor, the model being dependent on an arrangement of the plurality of glass body portions in the first glass component relative to one another; the spatial titanium profile in each of the glass body portions; calculating an optimal arrangement of the glass body portions relative to one another by means of the model so that a difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is minimal; positioning the glass body portions so that, in the step of connecting, the glass body portions are connected according to the calculated optimal arrangement.
In a similar field of endeavor as making optical element blanks, Blankenbecler teaches a method for making gradient property refractive elements that replaces a “cut” and “try” method where the starting materials vary slightly (Col 2 lines 36-41, 51-52). The method includes stacking plates where there is a starting spatial distribution of concentration of a common constituent in each plate, where the starting spatial distribution of concentration is converted to a property or properties (Col 3 lines 29-31, 48-50), “where the property to be controlled is index of refraction, the concentration to property relationship may be a relationship between concentration of or more constituents and index of refraction” (Col 3 53-57). The optimal arrangement of glass plates in the array and the closeness of the fit to the desired index profile is based upon the modeled results of the refractive index distribution related to diffusion time at a fixed temperature of the glass plates.
Further, Blankenbecler teaches:
predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor; Fig. 5 element 40, Col 7 lines 62-65, “...to select the starting assemblage and diffusion time…the desired profile for the index of refraction is input into the computer.”
providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor; Fig. 5 elements 40-88.
the model being dependent on,
an arrangement of the plurality of glass body portions in the first glass component relative to one another; Fig. 5 element 46, Col 8 lines 41-47, 64-67, “Each such starting spatial distribution represents a spatial distribution which can actually be made from the available compositions in the physical system used in the fabrication process. In the process illustrated in FIGS. 1-4, each starting spatial distribution must be a set of plates”.
the spatial titanium profile in each of the glass body portions; Col 7 lines 66-67, Col 8 lines 1-5, 12-17, “the index of refraction is to vary in only one dimension, i.e., in only the Z-direction of the assemblage. Accordingly, the desired index of refraction profile can be input as a series of Z-values with associated index of refraction values. The compositions of the particular set of materials available for use in the process are also input to the computer in Step 42”, “most preferably, where materials are supplied in batches the composition of each batch is measured and the composition of the batches actually on hand are used as the available compositions for input into the computer”.
calculating an optimal arrangement of the glass body portions relative to one another by means of the model; Col 8 lines 64-67, Col 9 lines 1-3, Col 14 lines 17-20, Col 15 lines 22-28, Col 15 lines 9-21, “the possible starting spatial distributions correspond to a…large number of possible plate arrays which can be physically made using the available compositions.”, “This set can be further limited to exclude those plate arrays which cannot possibly result in a distribution of index of refraction matching the desired index of refraction profile”. The algorithm continues in a “do-loop” to assess a best fit for each possible plate array based for a diffusion time, “In step 74, the computer next compute a value of fit between the refractive index distribution for the lens blank resulting from this plate array and this diffusion time”, “Then after all the possible plate arrays and diffusion times with a best fit are calculated, a straightforward search is conducted of the fits to determine the best fit”, “ This process repeats again and again, resulting in storage of similar values for each possible plate array selected.”
so that a difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is minimal; Col 14, lines 21-34 “The lower the value of such a sum, the better the fit”.
positioning the glass body portions so that, in the step of connecting, the glass body portions are connected according to the calculated optimal arrangement; Col 15 lines 42-46, “In the next stage of the process, the values are applied to actual fabrication…an actual assemblage is made…corresponding to the spatial distribution selected as the best array”.
Take as a whole, items a)-g) above discloses the claimed inventions except for use on glass body portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the methods a)-g) above of Blankenbecler in the glass body portions of Fujinoki979 to accommodate for changes in starting material composition to calculate new sets of possible starting arrays, per Blankenbecler (Col 16 lines 19-24).
The combination does not teach, specifically, wherein the step of measuring comprises the following steps of providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor, the model being dependent on the effects of pushing together on the spatial titanium profiles in the glass body portions. In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for EUV, Maida teaches homogenization methods for an ingot of titania doped quartz glass which includes a pushing together to form a spherical body ([0065]), where after the homogenization methods there is/is not a process step hot shaping to form a blank ([0037], [0065]-[0068], Example 1/[0059]-[0073] and Comparative Example 1/[0077]-[0079]). Maida further teaches that hot shaping serves to reduce the curvature radius of striae in EUV lithography members ([0039]), and analogously, homogenization methods for an ingot of titania doped quartz glass which includes a pushing together without hot shaping does not reduce the radius of curvature of striae. Maida discloses the claimed invention except for the glassy body portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into account during the step of measuring the known effects of not reducing the radius of curvature of the striae during the pushing together of the glass bodies without hot shaping, as noted by Maida, (Table 2, Example 1), which illustrates higher radius of curvatures of striae align with homogeneous TiO2 concentrations (distributions of 0.1wt%) and improved flatness of EUV masks made from the blanks.
The combination does not teach, specifically, wherein the step of measuring comprises the following steps of providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor, the model being dependent on the effects of turning on the spatial titanium profiles in the glass body portions . In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for Extreme Ultra Violet Lithography (herein “EUV”), Fujinoki348 teach where the spherical glass body of a first homogenization step and second molding step is rotated 90 degrees in method for producing silica-titania glass having no striae in three directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention take into account during the step of measuring the known effects of turning on the spatial titanium profiles by turning the spherical glass body to obtain the effect of eliminating striae and to make the composition uniform, as noted by Fujinoki348 ([0017], lines 1-2, 18-28).
Fujinoki979 further teaches:
connecting the glass body portions to form an elongate first glass component; Page 6 lines 4-5,10-11, “In order to process the glass body into a columnar shape…”, “it is possible to perform homogenization by vertically welding or adding the divided glass bodies together.”
first homogenization treatment of the first glass component; Fig. 13 step 108, Page 7 lines 35-40, “ A fan-shaped rod-shaped glass body is cut out (step 102), corners of the rod-shaped glass body are removed (step 104:removal processing step), and formed into a rod-shaped glass body having a substantially circular cross section(step 106: first). 1), a homogenization treatment is performed by applying a zone melting method so that a shear stress acts in a direction perpendicular to the growth axis of the glass body (step 108: first homogenization treatment step).”
pushing together the first glass component to create a spherical glass system; Fig. 11 (original) Fig. 13 step 109, Page 7 lines 6-12, “As shown in Fig. 11, the diameter of the glass body 18 is reduced (see note below) by reducing the distance between the chucks 32 a and 32 b of the lathe while igniting a part of the glass body 18 after the homogenization treatment with a burner 34. After enlarging and molding the spherical glass body 20 (step 112: second molding step), the molded spherical glass body 20 is separated from the glass support rod 30.” Note: the word reduced appears to be a typographical error, as Fig. 11 clearly shows the diameter is increased.
turning the glass system by more than 70 degrees; Fig. 14 (original) Page 7 lines 59-60, Page 8 lines 1-2, “In FIG. 14, 42a is a homogenization process axis in the first homogenization process, and 42b is a homogenization process axis in the second homogenization process. Although the holding method is not particularly limited, as shown in FIG. 14, the spherical glass body 30 separated from the glass support rod 30 is rotated by approximately 90 degrees…”
stretching the glass system to form an elongate second glass component; Fig. 13 step 113, Fig. 15. (original) lines 41-43, “… and after changing the spherical glass body so as to change the axis
(step 111: switching process), The spherical glass body is stretched while being heated (step 113: stretching process) and formed into a glass body having a cylindrical shape…”
second homogenization treatment of the second glass component to create a substrate precursor, the substrate precursor being substantially free of layer structures; Fig. 13 step 117, Page 8 lines 15-17, “By applying homogenization treatment to the shaped rod-shaped glass body 23 in the same manner as in the step108 (step 117), the striae is mechanically removed and the highly homogeneous silica having no striae in three directions completely, “ where striae are layer structures.”
Fujinoki979 teaches connecting glass bodies, processing the glass bodies for homogenization and spherical shaping, and after homogenization and spherical shaping, placing the homogenized spherical shape into heated cylindrical molding container to create a molded body (Page 9 lines 45-49, Page 10 lines 16-24) of 24kg but does not teach a molded body of at least 50kg.
In an analogous field of endeavor of substrate precursors for EUV applications, Mitsumori teaches a method for fusing a plurality of glass bodies to make a molded glass body of up to 100kg or more (Page 2 lines 25-30, Page 3 lines 1-3) where the molded glass body of Mitsumori is analogous to the molded body of Fujinoki. Mitsumori cites a method to place two glass bodies before fusion into a molding form to obtain a fusion formed body, or glass body after molding (Fig. 1 , lines 55-60). Mitsumori further describes the processes of heat treatment (Page 5, lines 10-50), “According to the above-described molding method, it is possible to produce a molded glass body for an optical member for EUV lithography…”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the method of fusing and molding a plurality of glass bodies of Mitsumori after the glass molded body process in the method of Fujinoki979. One would have been motivated to do so to make an after-molding glass body of any mass, as noted by Mitsumori (Page 6, lines 4-5)
Regarding Claim 2, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not teach
a substrate precursor that has a mass more than 100kg, in particular more than 200kg, in particular
more than 300 kg. Refer to Claim 1- Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being
scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined in
the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach producing a second glass body comprising a titanium dioxide content
of 3 wt.% up to 10 wt.%, a macroscopic, production-related titanium profile, a microscopic, production-
related layer structure, and dividing the glass body into a plurality of rod-like glass body portions. It
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
repeat the process of claim 1 to produce a second glass body to support the production of a larger
precursor substrate motivated by the economies of scale. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA
1960).
Regarding Claim 4 and 12, , Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as
combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches wherein:
at least three, in particular at least five, in particular at least eight, glass body portions are
connected to form the first glass component and connection takes place at a relevant contact
surface of the glass body portions; Page 6 lines 4-5, 10-11. “. Further, the number of divisions is
preferably 8 or less”, “vertically welding or adding the divided glass bodies together.”
Regarding Claim 5, , Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination does not teach the difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium
distribution is less than 1.5% based on a maximum value of the titanium distribution, the claim includes
a difference value of 0.0% . It would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve a 0% difference. Within the
scope of the claim and the instant application, the focus is to minimize and preferably be absent any
difference between the titanium model and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the precursor
substrate. As such, a value of 0.0% for the above claimed difference between the titanium
apportionment and titanium distribution from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a
reasonable expectation of success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, , Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches, wherein the glass body comprises at least one of the following property profiles:
a macroscopic, production-related CTE profile; Page 4, lines 38-40, “…the growth edge is covered with a flame, but due to the temperature distribution in the flame, the concentration distribution of silica and titania is likely to occur in the growth surface…”. Hence, titania concentration varies with temperature. One skilled in the art would know that CTE, or Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, varies with titania concentration. Therefore, a macroscopic production related CTE profile exists due to temperature condition.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends on claim 6, , Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348
and Mitsumori as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Blankenbecler further teaches in the step of measuring, at least one of the property profiles is measured in each of the glass plate arrays; Col 13 lines 1-2, 11-13 Col 8 lines, 12-17, “Accordingly, the desired index of refraction profile can be input as a series of Z-values with associated index of refraction values. The compositions of the particular set of materials available for use in the process are also input to the computer in Step 42.”, “Other concentration to property relationships can be applied to predict properties other than refractive index”, “ A particularly useful mechanical property which can be predicted…is coefficient of thermal expansion”, “most preferably, where materials are supplied in batches the composition of each batch is measured and the composition of the batches actually on hand are used as the available compositions for input into the computer”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate another property profile to model in the combination, such as coefficient of thermal expansion, so as to ensure the stress induced on the assemblage upon cooling does not exceed the maximum stress which the material of the assemblage can tolerate, as noted by Blankenbecler (Col 13 lines 37-47).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends on claims 7/6, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida,
Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
The combination teaches a method regarding measuring the desired spatial titanium distribution
where the measuring comprises a series of following steps, but does not specifically teach measuring a
desired spatial property distribution where the measuring comprises the same series of following steps.
Further Blankenbecler teaches similar requirements, but specific to, measuring a desired spatial
property distribution:
so that a sum difference is minimal; Col 14, lines 21-34, “The lower the value of such a sum, the better the fit”.
the sum difference comprising:
the difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution and the second difference between the property apportionment and the property distribution. Fig. 5 , Col 14 lines 4-10, 17-33. “Thus, at each of several points of different values of z, the value of the predicted refractive index for this particular time…is subtracted from the value of refractive index specified for the same point z in the desired index of refraction distribution.” Blankenbecler uses refractive index in the model to evaluate both concentration of titanium distribution and property distribution (See Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to apply the measuring steps of the combination to the desired spatial property
distribution, with the specific requirements of the desired spatial property distribution regarding the
sum difference, provide a model for relevant properties to improve the overall
model. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends on claims 8/ 7/6, , Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida,
Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.While the combination does not teach the sum difference is less than 1.5% based on a
sum of a maximum value of the titanium distribution and a maximum value of the property
distribution, in particular less than 1.0%, in particular less than 0.5%, the claim includes a
difference value of 0.0% sum difference based on a sum of a maximum value of the titanium
distribution and a maximum value of the property distribution. It would have been obvious to try for
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Within the
scope of the claim and the instant application, the focus is to minimize and preferably be absent any
sum difference based on a sum of a maximum value of the titanium distribution and a maximum value
of the property distribution. As such, a sum difference value of 0.0% for the above sum difference based
on a sum of a maximum value of the titanium distribution and a maximum value of the property
distribution from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of
success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as
combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches:
creating a porous soot body; Fig. 2, element 10, Page 3 lines 24-26, “As shown in FIG. 1, first, a
silica raw material and a titania raw material are introduced into an oxyhydrogen flame, and
silica / titania glass fine particles (soot) are vertically deposited and grown on a rotating
substrate to form a porous glass body.”
the microscopic, process-related layer structure extending substantially along a growth axis;
Page 1 lines 45-46, 56, “In the silica-titania glass manufactured by such a vertical direct method,
the growth streaks accompanying the rotation of the substrate during glass growth form
layered striae”, “In addition, since such striae are formed in parallel to the growth surface…”.
vitrifying the soot body to create the cylindrical glass body; Page 3 lines 26-29, “The
porous glass body is made transparent by heating in a furnace, and a silica-titania glass body
produced…”
the macroscopic, production-related titanium profile extending substantially along a
longitudinal axis; Fig. 2, Page 4, 38-40 “...the VAD method has disadvantages of…the
homogeneity of the component concentration of the multi-component glass such as silica-
titania glass…varies depending on the temperature condition”…”That is, it has been found
that… a distribution of silica-titania component concentrations in the radial direction is easily
formed”. See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As a distribution of silica-titania component concentrations in the radial direction is easily formed, “the
glass concentration of titania tends to increase at higher temperatures…and the growth edge is covered
with a flame”, (Page 4 lines 37-38) As the process creates a mass of material grown radially and
longitudinally, the titania concentration in a radial direction and a longitudinal direction is illustrated
below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A production related longitudinal titania profile is present.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida, Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoka979 further teaches the first glass component is heated during the step of pushing together;
Fig. 11 (original) Fig. 13 step 109, Page 7 lines 6-12, “As shown in FIG. 11, the diameter of the glass body
18 is reduced by reducing the distance between the chucks 32 a and 32 b of the lathe while igniting a
part of the glass body 18…with a burner 34.” Fujinoka979 discloses the claimed invention except for the
first glass component being heated before the step of pushing together. Both the process of
Fujinoki979 and the instant claim support creating a spherical glass system from the first glass
component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the invention to split the process steps of heating and pushing together of
Fujinoki979, as in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into
two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and
result, was held to be not patentably distinguishing the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd.
Pat. App. 1959). One would have been motivated to heat the first glass component before the step of
pushing together to assess potential process problems before creating a spherical glass system, such as
cracking of the support rods on the lathe or deformation of the glass rod under its own weight, as noted
by Fujinoki979 (Page 6 lines 29-35, 40-42).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741