DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1, 6, and 14 are amended.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an initially flat rectangular body” in line 4, which is not supported by the specification or previously presented claims. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCPHEETERS (US 20180178929 A1) in view of HONG (US 20140332058 A1) and LANGENHORST (Liquid Glass for Photovoltaics: Multifunctional Front Cover Glass for Solar Modules).
Regarding claim 1, MCPHEETERS teaches a method of forming and operating a solar cell assembly (see the method of forming and operating a space-qualified solar cell assembly) (see Figs. 1-7, Abstract, [0008]-[0009]) comprising;
providing a multijunction solar cell comprising mosaic portions (see the multijunction solar cell 100 including mosaic portions 101 in Fig. 3; [0008] the assembly comprising a III-V compound semiconductor multijunction solar cell);
arranging the mosaic portions in a substantially rectangular array frame (MCPHEETERS teaches arranging the mosaic portions in a substantially rectangular shape (see Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “in a substantially rectangular array frame”. However, HONG discloses a solar cell module, wherein a rectangular frame surrounds an outer rim portion of the solar cell panel (see [0029] and Fig. 6E), and the solar cell panel may be secured to the frame (see [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the rectangular frame so as to surround the outer rim portion of the solar cell assembly in the device of MCPHEETERS as taught by HONG, because the frame secures the solar cells assembly);
providing a cover glass (see the cover glass; [0048] The assembly of individual solar cells together with electrical interconnects and the cover glass) comprising an initially flat rectangular body (Regarding the claimed “an initially flat rectangular body”, MCPHEETERS discloses the flat rectangular shape of the solar cells assembly (see Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “an initially flat rectangular body”. However, HONG discloses a solar cell module, wherein the front glass substrate has an initially flat rectangular body of which shape is the same as the solar cell assembly (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cover glass so as to have a flat rectangular body in device of MCPHEETERS as taught by HONG, because the change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).) composed of a borosilicate glass ([0046] The cover glass is typically a ceria doped borosilicate glass) comprising a top surface configurated to receive solar radiation (The cover glass has a top surface configurated to receive solar radiation; [0046] a further distinctive difference of a space solar cell from a terrestrial solar cell is that the space solar cell must include a cover glass over the semiconductor device to provide radiation resistant shielding from particles in the space environment which could damage the semiconductor material), and a bottom surface configured to be disposed over the solar cell (The cover glass has a bottom surface configured to be disposed over the solar cell; [0046] The cover glass is typically a ceria doped borosilicate glass which is typically from three to six mils in thickness and attached by a transparent adhesive to the solar cell);
laser etching the top surface of the cover glass to form a structured cover glass comprising an array of geometrical structures disposed adjacent to one another on the top surface of the cover glass, each geometrical structure comprising a base and an apex and forming a plurality of vias between the geometrical structures (MCPHEETERS discloses the top surface of the glass (see the discussion above), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, LANGENHORST discloses multifunctional front cover glass for solar modules, wherein the front cover glass has the microcone texture, which reduces front-side reflection losses by ∼80% compared to a planar reference and increase in short-circuit current density of the solar cell (LANGENHORST: see Abstract and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the microcone texture on the top surface of the cover glass in the device of MCPHEETERS as taught by LANGENHORST, because the microcone texture reduces front-side reflection losses by ∼80% compared to a planar reference and increase in short-circuit current density of the solar cell. Therefore, modified MCPHEETERS teaches texturing the top surface of the glass to form an array of geometrical structures (see microcone texture) disposed adjacent to another on the top surface of the body (see Fig. 1 of LANGENHORST), each geometrical structure including a base and an apex and forming a plurality of vias between the geometrical structures (see the base at the bottom, the apex at the top, and the plurality of vias in the microcone texture in Fig. 1 of LANGENHORST); Further regarding the claimed “laser etching”, LANGENHORST suggests various fabrication techniques including laser-assisted etching technology (see Table 1 and Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the laser-assisted etching technology for fabrication of the microcone texture in MCPHEETERS, because LANGENHORST suggests the laser-assisted etching technology and the laser-assisted etching technology is known method of fabrication of the microcone texture and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the structured cover glass with the application method.);
wherein the array of geometrical structures increases emissivity of infrared radiation from the solar cell through the body in a wavelength range of 5 to 50 microns from the solar cell into an adjoining environment (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (LANGENHORST disclose a front cover glass comprising the glass body disposed adjacent to the solar cell, the micro-cone textures disposed on the light receiving or top surface of the glass body, and each of the micro-cone textures including a base and an apex and being disposed adjacent to one another and forms a plurality of vias on the top surface of the glass body (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein the micro-cone textures have a base, a width and a height, and wherein the ratio between the width of the base and the height of the micro-cone textures is about 1:1.4 (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein a height of the micro-cone textures is about 28 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein a pitch of the array of the micro-cone textures is about 20 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein the array of the micro-cone textures have a base width about 20 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract); Applicant’s Specification discloses a cover glass comprising a body composed of glass disposed adjacent to the solar cell and an array of geometrical structures disposed adjacent to one another on the top surface of the body each geometrical structure including a base and apex and forming a plurality of vias between the geometrical structures [0025], wherein the geometric structure has a base, a width and a height, and wherein the ratio between the width of the base and the height of the geometric structure is in the range of 1:1 to 1:6 [0027], wherein a height of the geometrical structure is in the range of 5 to 300 microns [0029], wherein a pitch of the array of the geometrical structures is in the range of 5 to 50 microns [0030], wherein an array of geometrical structures have a base width between 5 to 50 microns [0042]), the property regarding “wherein the array of geometrical structures increases emissivity of infrared radiation from the solar cell through the body in a wavelength range of 5 to 50 microns from the solar cell into an adjoining environment” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).);
bonding the bottom surface of the structured cover glass to a top surface of the mosaic portions by an adhesive ([0046] The cover glass is attached by a transparent adhesive to the solar cell); and
deploying and operating the solar cell assembly under illumination in an environment where the temperature is at least 50 to 70 oC ([0008] after initial deployment when the solar cell is deployed in space at AM0 and at an operational temperature in the range of 40 to 70 degrees Centigrade, the predetermined EOL time period comprising at least five years; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected temperature within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).);
wherein the structured cover glass functions to reduce the retention of heat in the solar cell during illumination and operation (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (LANGENHORST disclose a front cover glass comprising the glass body disposed adjacent to the solar cell, the micro-cone textures disposed on the light receiving or top surface of the glass body, and each of the micro-cone textures including a base and an apex and being disposed adjacent to one another and forms a plurality of vias on the top surface of the glass body (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein the micro-cone textures have a base, a width and a height, and wherein the ratio between the width of the base and the height of the micro-cone textures is about 1:1.4 (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein a height of the micro-cone textures is about 28 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein a pitch of the array of the micro-cone textures is about 20 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract), wherein the array of the micro-cone textures have a base width about 20 microns (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract); Applicant’s Specification discloses a cover glass comprising a body composed of glass disposed adjacent to the solar cell and an array of geometrical structures disposed adjacent to one another on the top surface of the body each geometrical structure including a base and apex and forming a plurality of vias between the geometrical structures [0025], wherein the geometric structure has a base, a width and a height, and wherein the ratio between the width of the base and the height of the geometric structure is in the range of 1:1 to 1:6 [0027], wherein a height of the geometrical structure is in the range of 5 to 300 microns [0029], wherein a pitch of the array of the geometrical structures is in the range of 5 to 50 microns [0030], wherein an array of geometrical structures have a base width between 5 to 50 microns [0042]), the property regarding “wherein the structured cover glass functions to reduce the retention of heat in the solar cell during illumination and operation” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the distance between the base and the apex of the geometrical structures on the cover glass is in a range of 5 to 300 microns (LANGENHORST: see about 28 microns; see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the apex is a point or small area forming the top of each of the geometrical structures (The apex is a point or small area forming the top of each of the microcone texture) (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the base of each of the geometrical structures is circular in shape (see the circular in shape), and the geometrical structures are cone shaped (see the cone) (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the base and the apex are connected by a single planar surface (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1 and Figure in Abstract; Alternatively, the lower cylinder part corresponds to the claimed “base” and the upper cone part corresponds to the claimed “apex”. Therefore, the lower cylinder part and the upper cone part are connected by a single planar surface).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the initially flat rectangular body is approximately 4 mils in thickness, and the borosilicate glass is cerium doped ([0046] The cover glass is typically a ceria doped borosilicate glass which is typically from three to six mils in thickness; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the base and the apex are connected by a first and a second surface, the first surface being adjacent to the base, the second surface being adjacent to the apex (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1b attached below and Figure in Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 7.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the second surface is at least twice the area of the first surface (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1b attached in the rejection of claim 7 and Figure in Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the base and the apex are connected by two truncated cone shaped bodies (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1b attached below and Figure in Abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the ratio between the width of the base and the height of the geometric structure is in the range of 1:1 to 1:6 (LANGENHORST: see Fig. 1b attached below and Figure in Abstract; Since the base width is about 20 microns and the height of the micro-cone textures is about 28 microns, the ratio is 1:1.4).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches upon receiving light through the cover glass, the operation of the solar cell assembly generates heat in the solar cell which is transmitted to the structured cover glass by radiative transfer (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (see the rejection of claim 1), the property regarding “upon receiving light through the cover glass, the operation of solar cell generates heat in the solar cell which is transmitted to the adjacent glass body by radiative transfer” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the increase in IR transmissivity provided by the geometrical structures results in an operating temperature decrease in the solar cell in excess of 5* C to 70 C, and thereby an increase in solar cell efficiency of at least 0.5% (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (see the rejection of claim 1), the property regarding “the increase in IR transmissivity provided by the geometrical structures results in an operating temperature decrease in the solar cell in excess of 5* C to 70 C, and thereby an increase in solar cell efficiency of at least 0.5%” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches a plot of IR transmissivity versus wavelength of the initially flat rectangular body has a spike at a wavelength of approximately 9 microns, or 22 microns, or both (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (see the rejection of claim 1), the property regarding “a plot of IR transmissivity versus wavelength of the flat rectangular body has a spike at a wavelength of approximately 9 microns, or 22 microns, or both” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 14.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the IR reflectivity of a flat cerium doped borosilicate glass at a wavelength of approximately 9 microns in excess of 50%, and an IR reflectivity of the structured cover glass is less than 10% (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (see the rejection of claim 1), the property regarding “the IR reflectivity of a flat cerium doped borosilicate glass at a wavelength of approximately 9 microns in excess of 50%, and an IR reflectivity of the structured cover glass is less than 10%” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches two solar cell mosaic portions are arranged in a substantially rectangular array frame during the arranging step (see the two mosaic portions in Figs. 3-6 of MCPHEETERS and the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches the solar cell assembly is deployed in an earth orbit ([0042] The space solar cells and arrays experience a variety of complex environments in space missions, including the vastly different illumination levels and temperatures seen during normal earth orbiting missions).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified MCPHEETERS teaches associated with the reststrahlen effect, an IR reflectivity of the structured cover glass is less than 10% (Regarding the recitation, since modified MCPHEETERS meets all the compositional and structural requirements (see the rejection of claim 1), the property regarding “associated with the reststrahlen effect, an IR reflectivity of the structured cover glass is less than 10%” would obviously have been present in modified MCPHEETERS’s composition. “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). See MPEP 2112.).).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCPHEETERS (US 20180178929 A1) in view of HONG (US 20140332058 A1) and LANGENHORST (Liquid Glass for Photovoltaics: Multifunctional Front Cover Glass for Solar Modules) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of CORNFELD (US 20110017285 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the ratio between the width of the base and the height of each of the geometric structures is 1:3”, CORNFELD discloses a solar cell with a textured coverglass, wherein FIG. 4 shows the moth-eye pattern on the coverglass composed of cone-like structures, wherein a height is in a range from 200 to over 500 nm from the planar surface of the coverglass and the peaks of the cones are approximately 200 nm apart (Based on Fig. 4 and the disclosure, the width of the base is approximately 200 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify shape of the microcone texture so as to be a cone-like structure with the height in a range from 200 to over 500 nm and the base with 200 nm width in modified MCPHEETERS as taught by CORNFELD, because the change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified MCPHEETERS teaches the ratio between the width of the base and the height of each geometric structure is 1:3 (Since the base width is 200 nm and the height is in a range from 200 to over 500 nm, the calculated ratio is from 1:1 to 1:over 2.5; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected ratio within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/16/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “Hong does not teach or suggest a borosilicate cover glass and certainly does not teach or suggest a structured borosilicate cover glass or the laser etching step according to instant claim 1” and “Langenhorst does not remedy the failure of McPheeters and Hong to teach a structured borosilicate cover glass formed according to claim 1”, is not persuasive.
MCPHEETERS teaches borosilicate cover glass and LANGENHORST teaches the microcone texture on the top surface of the cover glass and the laser-assisted etching technology for fabrication of the microcone texture on the top surface of the cover glass (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “Langenhorst only teaches the formation of microcone textures via the liquid glass technique and provides no teaching or suggestion related to forming the borosilicate glass geometrical structures of instant amended claim 1 by any method, especially not via laser etching”, is not persuasive.
LANGENHORST teaches Laser structuring of glasses has been achieved via the use of laser-assisted etching technologies. The laser-assisted etching technologies are well known, established method for structuring the surface of glass, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in predictably producing structured cover glass these known techniques. Therefore, combining the laser-assisted etching technologies disclosed in LANGENHORST to MCPHEETERS would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the characterization that such techniques may produce surfaces "too rough for optical applications and require intensive postprocessing" is merely an observation of a potential drawback or a specific implementation detail from a prior art author, not a teaching that laser-assisted etching cannot be used.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights