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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanii (US 2009/0297772 A1) in view of Tamitsuji, et al. (US 2010/0159227 A1).
Tanii teaches a window material for an optical element (paragraph 0100), comprising a glass substrate (paragraph 0003, Tanii teaches [in the background section] that the glass may be quartz), in a flat plane shape and having main surfaces through which light is transmitted (paragraph 0002), at least one of the main surfaces being a rough surface (paragraph 0003; Tanii teaches a roughening process for the surface of the glass), and an antireflection film formed on the at least one main surface of the quartz glass substrate, the main surface being the rough surface (paragraph 0100; Tanii teaches applications for the surface-treated glass, of which the glass may include an antireflection film).
Tanii teaches quartz glass, among other types of species of glass (see paragraph 0060 – 0067); however, does not specifically teach synthetic quartz glass.
Tamitsuji, et al. teach a glass body with antireflection films (paragraph 0006). Traditionally, synthetic quartz glass is used (paragraph 0006). The antireflection films are typically applied via sputtering or vapor deposition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to use synthetic quartz glass as the species in the optical element of Tanii as both references appreciate quartz in optical elements with antireflective properties.
With respect to claim 2, while Tanii and Tamitsuji, et al. do not specifically teach the total value of dale void volume as recited; however, the examiner contends that this is property that would be expected based on the roughness and treatment of the glass itself. Per applicant’s specification, a synthetic quartz glass substrate is immersed in hydrofluoric acid for 30 min (see paragraph 0106) to adjust the surface state of the substrate. Turning to the primary reference of Tanii, Tanii teaches a surface treatment of the glass using hydrogen fluoride to form an uneven surface with a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.1 – 2 micron (paragraph 0003). Thus, the examiner contends that the dale void volume is an expected property given the equivalent roughening treatments.
With respect to claim 3, the roughness of the glass plate in Tanii is 0.1 – 2 micron (paragraph 0003), which encompasses the claimed range and thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 4, the window element of Tanii as modified by Tamitsuji may be used for an optical element. Examiner contends the recitation “for a light emitting element” describes what the window can function as. Because the window element of Tanii as modified by Tamitsuji has the quartz glass with the roughness, antireflection film and equivalent surface treatment as that disclosed in the instant specification, the window element of the prior art may be used for a light emitting element.
With respect to claim 5, Tanii as modified by Tamitsuji render obvious a film formed of metal fluoride (see Tamitsuji, paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 9, the window element of Tanii as modified by Tamitsuji may be used for an optical element. Examiner contends the recitation “for a light emitting element having a light distribution angle of 150o or less” describes what the window can function as. Because the window element of Tanii as modified by Tamitsuji has the quartz glass with the roughness, antireflection film and equivalent surface treatment as that disclosed in the instant specification, the window element of the prior art may be used for a light emitting element.
Claims 1, 4 – 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa, et al. (US 2004/0071889 A1) in view of Tamitsuji, et al. (US 2010/0159227 A1).
Asakawa, et al. teach a window material for an optical element (paragraph 0002), comprising a quartz glass substrate (paragraph 0056), having a flat plane shape (see figure 2) and having main surfaces (figure 2) through which light is transmitted (see figure 1, paragraph 0003), at least one of the main surfaces being a rough surface (paragraph 0059) and an antireflection film formed on the at least one main surface of the glass substrate (paragraph 0059 and 0065, see also figure 2) the main surface being the rough surface (paragraph 0065).
Asakawa, et al. however does not specifically teach that the quartz glass substrate is a synthetic quartz.
Tamitsuji, et al. teach a glass body with antireflection films (paragraph 0006). Traditionally, synthetic quartz glass is used (paragraph 0006). The antireflection films are typically applied via sputtering or vapor deposition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to use synthetic quartz glass as the species in the optical element of Asakawa, et al. as both references appreciate quartz in optical elements with antireflective properties.
With respect to claim 4, the window element of Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji may be used for an optical element. Examiner contends the recitation “for a light emitting element” describes what the window can function as. Because the window element of Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji has the quartz glass with a roughness and antireflection film thereon, wherein the glass in Asakawa, et al. is subject to equivalent surface treatment as that disclosed in the instant specification, the window element of the prior art may be used for a light emitting element. Examiner further notes that Asakawa, et al. even teach that the window element may be used in liquid crystal panels, a cover glass for a solid-state image pickup device or as a package window for a solid-state image pickup device, sensors or the like and thus, examiner contends that Asakawa, et al. do not intend to limit the use of the window glass and it can be used in a light-emitting element as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji render obvious the film formed of a metal compound selected from a metal oxide and a metal fluoride (see Tamitsuji, paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 6, Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji render obvious a 3-layer antireflection film. Examiner notes that Tamitsuji teaches the substrate with a 3-layer film (see figure 2).
With respect to claim 7, Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji render obvious a 3-layer antireflection film, wherein the film layers are a medium refractive index layer, a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer (paragraph 0013). Species of the first layer may include aluminum oxide (see paragraph 0007); species of the second layer may include hafnium, titanium, niobium or tantalum (see paragraph 0015, 0021); species of the third layer may include silicon (paragraph 0015), while other species of the third layer may include Magnesium fluoride (paragraph 0007). Thus, because of the different species of the three-layer structure appreciated by Tamitsuji, the examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a three-layer structure as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first layer is formed of aluminum oxide, the second layer is formed of hafnium oxide and the third layer is formed of either magnesium fluoride or silicon oxide.
With respect to claim 9, the window element of Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji may be used for an optical element. Examiner contends the recitation “for a light emitting element having a light distribution angle of 150o or less” describes what the window can function as. Because the window element of Arakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji has the quartz glass with the roughness, antireflection film and equivalent surface treatment as that disclosed in the instant specification, the window element of the prior art may be used for a light emitting element.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanii in view of Tamitsuji, et al. and further in view of Nam, et al. (US 10,295,705).
Tanii and Tamitsuji, et al. render obvious the features as noted above, but do not specifically teach the ranges as claimed, the examiner notes that the species of the layers are equivalent to that which is claimed and disclosed in the specification and as such, the indices would be the same. Regarding the thicknesses, examiner notes that no thickness is claimed; however, the instant specification teaches thicknesses in the angstrom range. Tanii and Tamitsuji are silent with respect to thickness of the film.
Nam, et al. teach anti-reflection glass with coatings thereon. The coating thicknesses are in the nanometer range; however, Nam, et al. teach that the thicknesses may be adjusted depending on reaction times, conditions (column 7, lines 1 – 10). In addition, Nam, et al., note that when the thicknesses were less than 10 + 5 nm, a high level of transmittance was observed (paragraph 0007). Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the layer thicknesses to ensure a high level of transmittance and deter contaminants from infiltrating per the teachings of Nam, et al. Combining the teachings in Tanii, Tamitsuji, et al. and Nam, et al. would thus render obvious the range(s) as claimed.
Claims 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakawa, et al. in view of Tamitsuji, et al.
With respect to claim 10, Examiner notes that Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji, et al. teach the window material according to claim 1. In addition, Asakawa, et al. teach different optical elements, to include a lid for an optical element package (see figures 1 – 5). Regarding the inclusion of an adhesive, Asakawa, et al. teach the window material for a liquid crystal panel, wherein the window material is bonded to outer surfaces of opposite substrates (paragraph 0090). In another embodiment, the substrates may have a microlens array bonded thereto via an adhesive (thermosetting resin or equivalent, see paragraph 0095).
Thus, the examiner notes that the inclusion of an adhesive would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art depending on the optical element package desired per the teachings in Asakawa, et al.
With respect to claim 11, the adhesive may be resin-based (see paragraph 0095).
With respect to claim 12, while not specifically teaching the adhesive in a semi-cured state, examiner contends that the adhesive type and condition depends on the optical package being manufactured and thus, it may be semi-cured.
With respect to claim 13, Examiner notes that Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji, et al. teach the window material according to claim 1. In addition, Asakawa, et al. teach different optical elements, to include a lid for an optical element package and a housing (see figures 1 – 5). The window material may be positioned such that light passes therethrough (see figure 4) and the optical element is housed in the housing member (see figures 4 and 6). Regarding the inclusion of an adhesive, Asakawa, et al. teach the window material for a liquid crystal panel, wherein the window material is bonded to outer surfaces of opposite substrates (paragraph 0090). In another embodiment, the substrates may have a microlens array bonded thereto via an adhesive (thermosetting resin or equivalent, see paragraph 0095).
Thus, the examiner notes that the inclusion of an adhesive would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art depending on the optical element package desired per the teachings in Asakawa, et al.
With respect to claims 14 – 15, the window element of Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji may be used for an optical element. Examiner contends the recitation “for a light emitting element” or “for a light emitting element…the light emitting element having a light distribution angle of 150o or less” describes what the window can function as. Because the window element of Asakawa, et al. as modified by Tamitsuji, et al. has the quartz glass with a roughness and antireflection film thereon, wherein the glass in Asakawa, et al. is subject to equivalent surface treatment as that disclosed in the instant specification, the window element of the prior art may be used for a light emitting element. Examiner further notes that Asakawa, et al. even teach that the window element may be used in liquid crystal panels, a cover glass for a solid-state image pickup device or as a package window for a solid-state image pickup device, sensors or the like and thus, examiner contends that Asakawa, et al. do not intend to limit the use of the window glass and it can be used in a light-emitting element as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 – 5, filed July 8, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections over Okuno ‘779 and KR ’570 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s primary argument is that the substrate in Okuno ‘779 is not synthetic quartz glass, but a resin composition. Upon a review of the reference, examiner concurs and thus, based upon an updated search, has provided a new rejection over the primary reference of Tanii and Asakawa, et al. in view of Tamitsuji, et al. Examiner also notes that based on the different references used, the rejection has been made non-final. Examiner notes that Tanii and Asakawa, et al. teach roughened glass substrates with antireflection coatings thereon. Both however, are silent to the use of synthetic quartz. Tamitsuji, et al. has been introduced to render the use of synthetic quartz as obvious.
References of Interest
Harris, et al. (US 8,619,365) teaches a glass substrate with multiple layers of an anti-reflection coating thereon. The coatings may be oxides of Hafnium, Titanium, Magnesium and Silicon (or others). Thicknesses of the layers are also in the angstrom range.
Dannenberg (US 2003/0064255 A1) teaches antiflective coatings on a glass substrate.
Bastien (US 3,463,574) teaches antireflective coatings on a substrate with thicknesses in the angstrom range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights