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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 12/17/2025 in which Applicant lists claims 3-4 as being cancelled, claims 6-7 as being original, and claims 1-2, 5, 8-9 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 12/17/2025 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Applicant is reminded that 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(iv) and 1.52(a)(1)(v) requires that all papers and writings must be plainly and legibly written either by a typewriter or machine printer in permanent dark ink or its equivalent; and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition.
Applicant’s amendments submitted on 12/17/2025 include amendments of poor line-quality. Applicant is advised in the future to be sure to turn off “Track Changes” before submitting amendments so that the amendments appear legible and have sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims dated 12/17/2025 are accepted. The rejections of the claims made under 35 USC 112(b) and cited in the office action mailed 9/23/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 includes the limitation “diffuse particulate structure” which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, and is not described so as to convey the intended meaning of “diffuse particulate structure”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of the remarks, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 in view of Yamada (JP 2009-162989 A) and Imai (JP 2010-038948 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Isshiki et al. (US 2020/0363571 A1), Takada et al. (US 2019/0094438 A1) and Yoshizawa et al. (US 2018/0074230 A1) all made of record in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/23/2025 in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-7 in view of Nakamura (US 2020/0408955 A1, of record) and Kawakatsu (JP 2008-036605 A, of record) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Nakamura discloses forming an intermediate film 30 directly on a base (22 and/or 20). However, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the remarks, as they pertain to the teachings of Nakamura and Kawakatsu, with respect to at least claims 1, 2 and 8, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of at least claims 1, 2 and 8 in view of Nakamura and Kawakatsu are hereby withdrawn.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isshiki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0363571 A1, of record (hereafter Isshiki).
Regarding claim 1, Isshiki discloses an optical product comprising:
a base (see at least element 11); and
an optical film formed directly on a film-formation surface of the base (see at least element 14), wherein
the optical film has
an Al2O3 layer that is made of Al2O3 and is disposed on a side facing the film-formation surface of the base (see at least figure 1, element 13, para. [0073]), and
an SiO2 layer that is made of SiO2 and that has a nanoscopically uneven structure (see at least the abstract, figure 1, element 12, paras. [0021], [0042], [0067]); and
wherein the nanoscopically uneven structure is at least one of a multiple-pyramids-shaped structure and a needle-array structure (see at least figure 1, elements 14 and 14a, as well as figure 8, element 14).
Regarding claim 2, Isshiki discloses an optical product comprising:
a base (see at least element 11); and
an optical film formed directly on a film-formation surface of the base (see at least element 14), wherein
the optical film has
an Al2O3 layer that contains greater than 50 percent by weight Al2O3 that is disposed on a side facing the film-formation surface of the base (see at least figure 1, element 13, para. [0073], and/or lower element 12, para. [0067], wherein it is described that mixtures or SiO2 can/may be contained, but are not required, and additionally see para. [0205] which describes the method for forming the high refractive index layer which does not include any additional material), and
an SiO2 layer that that contains SiO2 greater than 50 percent by weight SiO2 and has a nanoscopically uneven structure (see at least the abstract, figure 1, element 12, paras. [0021], [0033], [0042], [0067], [0199]-[0206]); and
wherein the nanoscopically uneven structure is at least one of a multiple-pyramids-shaped structure and a needle-array structure (see at least figure 1, elements 14 and 14a, as well as figure 8, element 14).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0094438 A1, of record (hereafter Takada).
Regarding claim 1, Takada discloses an optical product comprising:
a base (see at least element 10); and
an optical film formed directly on a film-formation surface of the base (see at least element 20), wherein
the optical film has
an Al2O3 layer that is made of Al2O3 and is disposed on a side facing the film-formation surface of the base (see at least figure 1, element 21, paras. [0053]-[0055]), and
an SiO2 layer that is made of SiO2 and that has a nanoscopically uneven structure (see at least figure 1, element 13, paras. [0039], [0047]-[0051], [0065]); and
wherein the nanoscopically uneven structure is at least one of a multiple-pyramids-shaped structure and a needle-array structure (see at least figures 1 and 3, element 13 or 13A, para. [0039]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshizawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0074230 A1, of record (hereafter Yoshizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshizawa discloses an optical product comprising:
a base (see at least element 11); and
an optical film formed directly on a film-formation surface of the base (see at least element 15), wherein
the optical film has
an Al2O3 layer that is made of Al2O3 and is disposed on a side facing the film-formation surface of the base (see at least figure 3, element 14, paras. [0090]-[0100]), and
an SiO2 layer that is made of SiO2 and that has a nanoscopically uneven structure (see at least figure 3, element 12c, paras. [0059]-[0061], [0073]); and
wherein the nanoscopically uneven structure is at least one of a multiple-pyramids-shaped structure and a needle-array structure (see at least figure 3, element 12c, para. [0073]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0408955 A1, of record (hereafter Nakamura) in view of Kawakatsu, JP 2008-036605 A, of record (hereafter Kawakatsu; It is noted that the cited paragraphs of Kawakatsu are with respect to the English Machine translation provided by Applicant with the 8/2/2023 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses an optical product manufacturing method comprising:
forming, directly on a base (see at least figure 1, element 22, and/or 20), an aluminium-based manufacture intermediate film made of aluminium, an aluminium alloy, or an aluminium compound (see at least element 30, paras. [0060]-[0064], [0078]); and
immersing the base having the aluminium-based manufacture intermediate film in an aqueous solution (see at least element 30, para. [0064]).
Nakamura further discloses that the aqueous solution in which the film is immersed is ultrapure water (para. [0064]), but does not explicitly disclose that the aqueous solution includes silica, wherein the silica in the aqueous solution has a concentration of not greater than 10 mg/I.
Table 8, Examples 32 and 33 on page 15 and page 17 of the disclosure of the current application disclose that pure water with an extremely high purity, as used in the embodiments of the invention, may have a silica concentration of 0.003 mg/I, and that pure water having a normal purity, as used in the embodiments of the invention, may have a silica concentration of 0.06 mg/I. Both the extremely high purity water and the normal purity water used in the current application have a silica concentration of not greater than 10 mg/I.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the “ultrapure water” used by Nakamura has a silica concentration of not greater than 10 mg/I.
Additionally, Kawakatsu teaches that it is desirable to efficiently produce purified water having a high water quality with a low silica concertation, wherein the water has a silica concentration of not greater than 10 mg/I (see at least the abstract, paras. [0001], [0057]-[0058], [0074]-[0076] of Kawakatsu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical product manufacturing method of Nakamura to include the teachings of Kawakatsu, so that the ultrapure water used by Nakamura is a high purity water with a low silica concertation, wherein the water has a silica concentration of not greater than 10 mg/I, for the purpose of controlling the optical and physical formation characteristics of the alumina hydrate (i.e. boehmite) layer formed by the aqueous solution of Nakamura while preventing contamination by unwanted minerals.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura in view of Kawakatsu discloses the limitations of claim 5, and wherein the aqueous solution has a temperature of not lower than 80°C and not higher than 100°C (see at least paragraphs [0064] and [0078] of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Kawakatsu discloses the limitations of claim 5, and wherein the aluminium-based manufacture intermediate film is made of at least one of Al, Al203, AlN, and AlON (see at least paragraph [0064] of Nakamura).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/24/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872