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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on pg. 5:
“The present application teaches, for instance, that the layer system combines an anti-reflective property with the possibility of achieving shielding against static or low frequency electric fields. See present application publication at paragraph [0011]. This means that the layer system is optimized with respect to both optical and electrical properties.
In contrast, Zhang describes an optical member including an oxide layer that has a stable fine textured structure and is excellent in durability. See Zhang, Abstract. It is readily apparent from the entire disclosure of Zhang that Zhang merely aims at improving the optical properties of the member to be produced. There is no hint whatsoever that electrical properties should be taken into account, let alone any shielding effects against static or low frequency electric fields.
Regarding the electrically conductive surface the Office Action refers to the surface of the phosphate compound containing layer 25 shown in Figure 2. In particular, the Office Action cites paragraphs [0023] and [0031] with respect to layer 25.
However, neither these paragraphs nor the rest of the disclosure of Zhang provides any hint whatsoever that the phosphate compound containing layer 25 might be electrically conductive.
Applicant reemphases that Zhang does not address electric properties of the optical member to be produced at all.
For example, paragraph [0010] explicitly states that the purpose of the oxide layer with the phosphate compound is to overcome the disadvantage in durability from the glass so that an optical member having broad optical characteristics can be provided.”
Examiner responds that Zhang describes the phosphate compound-containing layer 25 as containing metal materials such as aluminum and titanium (para. 31). Although Zhang does not describe these materials as electrical conductors, it is clear that the materials are electrically conductive by definition. Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 4, 6 – 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0176038 A1).
As to claim 1, Zhang shows a reflection-reducing layer system (Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 15, 16, 21 and 24) arranged on a substrate (i.e. glass layer 21, Fig. 2 and para. 23), wherein a surface of the reflection-reducing layer system facing away from the substrate is electrically conductive (i.e. phosphate compound-containing layers 25, Fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 31), and wherein a nanostructure 24 comprising a plurality of pillars arranged side by side is arranged between the substrate and the surface (Fig. 2 and paras. 24 – 27).
As to claim 2, Zhang shows that an electrically conductive layer 23 is arranged between the substrate and the nanostructure (Fig. 2 and para. 23).
As to claim 3, Zhang shows that the electrically conductive layer is electrically conductively connected to the surface of the reflection-reducing layer system (paras. 24 and 31).
As to claim 4, Zhang shows that at least some of the pillars have cavities (i.e. gaps, Fig. 2 and para. 24).
As to claim 6, Zhang shows that the pillars have a height-to-width ratio of at least 1.0 (Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Zhang shows that the nanostructure has an effective refractive index of at most 1.6 (para. 16).
As to claim 8, Zhang shows that a further nanostructure 22 is arranged between the substrate and the nanostructure (Fig. 2 and para. 24).
As to claim 9, Zhang shows that an interference layer sequence 22/23 is arranged between the substrate and the nanostructure (Fig. 2 and para. 24).
As to claim 10, Zhang shows a method, the method comprising: providing a substrate (i.e. glass layer 21, Fig. 2 and para. 23); and forming a nanostructure 24 with a plurality of pillars arranged side by side on the substrate (Fig. 2 and paras. 24 – 27), wherein a surface of a formed layer system facing away from the substrate is electrically conductive (i.e. phosphate compound-containing layers 25, Fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 31), and wherein the formed layer system is a reflection-reducing (Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 15, 16, 21 and 24).
As to claim 16, Zhang shows a system (Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 15, 16, 21 and 24) comprising a substrate (i.e. glass layer 21, Fig. 2 and para. 23); and a layer system arranged on the substrate, and configured to reduce optical reflection (Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 15, 16, 21 and 24), wherein a surface of the layer is electrically conductive (i.e. phosphate compound-containing layers 25, Fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 31), and wherein a nanostructure 24 of the layer system comprises a plurality of pillars arranged side by side and is arranged between the substrate and the surface (Fig. 2 and paras. 24 – 27).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ye et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0161170 A1).
As to claim 5, Zhang shows that the pillars are stochastically randomly distributed over the substrate (i.e. based on unevenness of the micron/submicron order, Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 16 and 20).
Zhang does not show that at least for some pillars, a center-to-center distance to a closest pillar is between 50 nm and 100 nm, inclusive.
Ye shows that at least for some pillars, a center-to-center distance to a closest pillar is between 50 nm and 100 nm (Figs. 2 – 4 and para. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zhang with those of Ye because designing the system in this way allows the device to finely tune characteristics such as transmission efficiency and transmission polarization ratio (para. 64).
Claims 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0355467 A1).
As to claim 11, Zhang shows that forming the nanostructure comprises the: forming a nanostructured layer on the substrate (Fig. 2 and paras. 24 – 27); overlaying the nanostructured layer with a layer (Fig. 2 and para. 24).
Zhang does not show performing a post-treatment in which the nanostructured layer is decomposed or removed at least in places.
Lee shows performing a post-treatment in which a nanostructured layer is decomposed or removed at least in places (para. 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zhang with those of Lee because designing the system in this way is one of many well-known ways to allows the device to enhance ease/flexibility of forming the desired pattern (para. 110).
As to claim 12, Zhang shows that the nanostructured layer comprises an organic or partially organic material (para. 32).
As to claim 14, Zhang shows applying an electrically conductive cover layer after providing the substrate, the electrically conductive layer forming the electrically conductive surface of the formed layer system (Fig. 2 and paras. 23 and 31).
Zhang does not show performing a post-treatment in which the nanostructured layer is decomposed or removed at least in places.
Lee shows performing a post-treatment in which a nanostructured layer is decomposed or removed at least in places (para. 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zhang with those of Lee because designing the system in this way is one of many well-known ways to allows the device to enhance ease/flexibility of forming the desired pattern (para. 110).
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627