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 § 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20160145147A1 (US’147).
Regarding claim 1, US’147 discloses a glass article made from a glass precursor material may include up to about 91 wt. % silica, for example, between about 75 wt. % and about 91 wt. %. In addition to silica, the glass precursor materials may include between about 9.0 wt. % and about 17 wt. % titania, or between about 9 wt. % and about 14 wt. %. titania. See [0020], The titania content is of 9.5%, 10.5% and 11.5% See table 1. Please note that there is a typographical error on the Table 1. The contents of 9.5%, 10.5% and 11.5% are meant to be titania contents according to the disclosure of the prior art.
The doped silica-titania glass as disclosed herein may have a CTE slope versus temperature of less than about 1 ppb/K2. See [0036].
The doped silica-titania glass disclosed herein may also have high spatial uniformity through the thickness of the glass. The variation of titania concentration through the thickness of the doped silica-titania glass may be less than about 0.10 wt. %, and the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae. See [0038].
Although the prior art is silent about “no stria is observed on at least one main surface and on at least one end surface in a stria evaluation according to JOGIS-11 (2008)”, the prior art discloses that the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae and it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, US’147 discloses a glass article made from a glass precursor material may include up to about 91 wt. % silica, for example, between about 75 wt. % and about 91 wt. %. In addition to silica, the glass precursor materials may include between about 9.0 wt. % and about 17 wt. % titania, or between about 9 wt. % and about 14 wt. %. titania. See [0020], The titania content is of 9.5%, 10.5% and 11.5% See table 1. Please note that there is a typographical error on the Table 1. The contents of 9.5%, 10.5% and 11.5% are meant to be titania contents according to the disclosure of the prior art.
The doped silica-titania glass as disclosed herein may have a CTE slope versus temperature of less than about 1 ppb/K2. See [0036].
The doped silica-titania glass disclosed herein may also have high spatial uniformity through the thickness of the glass. The variation of titania concentration through the thickness of the doped silica-titania glass may be less than about 0.10 wt. %, and the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae. See [0038].
Although the prior art is silent about “stria strengths on at least one main surface and on at least one end surface conform to class A of MIL-G174B in United States Military Standard”, the prior art discloses that the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae and it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, although the prior art is silent about the in-plane refractive index variation width being 5 x10-5 or less on the at least one main surface and on the at least one end surface, the prior art indeed discloses that the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the glass’s in-plane refractive index variation width is in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the prior art discloses that the variation of titania concentration through the thickness of the doped silica-titania glass may be less than about 0.10 wt. %, and the glass may be uniform and substantially free of striae. See [0038].
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the prior art discloses that the dopant is a hydroxyl group, the hydroxyl concentration may be between about 0.001 wt. % and about 0.20 wt. %, or between about 0.01 wt. % and about 0.15 wt. %, or between 0.03 wt. % and about 0.15 wt. %, or even between about 0.06 wt. % and about 0.15 wt. %, See [0034].
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the doped silica-titania glass may be used as substrate materials for mirrors, other optics and photomasks in EUV lithography processing systems and in other applications where increased thermal and dimensional stability may be beneficial. Mirrors used in projection optics can have a diameter in the range of about 10 cm to about 60 cm, and may become even larger in the future. The use of inserts in the critical zone of EUV lithography elements is disclosed in commonly owned U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2013/0047669 A1. See [0016], US20130047669 A1 discloses that the thickness of the critical zone is less than approximately 3 cm. See [0016]. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the prior art discloses fining to remove gas bubbles from the glass melt, and stirring to homogenize the glass melt. See [0022-0023]. Thus, I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the bubble of 10 micron or more to make homogeneous glass melt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights