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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered. The applicant has amended the claim(s) 1 and 7, cancelled 5. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant amended claim 1 by adding subject matter of claim 5 and argued that the amended claim 1 is allowable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Specification of the instant application disclosed and also claim 1 recites: “according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: a substrate main body having a first principal surface and a second principal surface; and a reflection suppressing portion provided on at least one of the first principal surface or the second principal surface of the substrate main body. The reflection suppressing portion includes a plurality of protrusions which are arranged in a grating shape, and each have a tapered portion in a vertical cross section”, [0005]. The claim does not specify the type of the material of the substrate main body, and how the claimed member configured for the terahertz equipment and silent about the transmittance of terahertz wave through this member. The limitation is about the shape of the member, that is a substrate.
The applicant argued “the presently claimed invention is for a member for terahertz equipment, namely in a terahertz band (wavelength of about 1 mm or more)”, [page 10 of Remarks]. The claim 1 recites “A member for terahertz equipment, comprising:”. Firstly, a member for terahertz equipment is recited only in the preamble of the claim. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural imitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (COPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robje, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPG 478, 434 (COPA 1951)).
The Applicant argues “The technical meaning of porosity as claimed is different from that of Bodo in which "The pore size of the claimed invention is much larger than that in Bodo, although there is some overlap. As is clear from the combination of claimed the pore size and the porosity, the porosity in the presently claimed invention is incommensurably larger than the porosity of the quartz in Bodo. Further, the presently claimed invention is for a member for terahertz equipment, namely in a terahertz band”, [page 9 and 10 of Remarks]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terahertz equipment recited in the preamble of the claim. The claimed element is a member of the terahertz equipment, and material and the wavelength, a terahertz band, that passes through this member is not explicitly claimed. The structural details of the terahertz equipment and the relation between terahertz equipment and the claimed member is not defined in the claim.
The Primary reference Shinichi teaches an optical component for terahertz light, wherein the optical component body is formed on at least one of the incident surface and the exit surface of the optical component body, and a plurality of triangles are continuous, [Teah-Solution]; “antireflection microstructure 51 formed by the plurality of V grooves … The width W and height H of the base of the triangle are determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, the degree of antireflection, and the direction of the electric field of the terahertz light incident on the V-groove”, [page 5 of MT]. Secondary reference Bodo is used for the teaching of the porosity of a body of a substrate and pore size.
The Applicant argues by pointing to few paragraphs of the specification of the instant application: “According to the embodiment of the presently claimed invention, it is possible to realize a terahertz device member in which loss of terahertz waves due to reflection is suppressed and which has excellent handleability (see Specification, para. [0006]). In addition, since the substrate body has a specific porosity, densification is possible, and the effects of suppressing the scattering of terahertz waves by pores and suppressing the residual OH groups by pores can be obtained (see Specification, para. [0020])”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Primary reference Shinichi teaches a terahertz spectrometer 100 comprising: a substrate 50, [0035], Figs. 2,3; having a top surface of substrate and a bottom surface of substrate 50; and a reflection suppressing portion anti-reflection microstructure 51, [0035], and a reflection suppressing portion includes a plurality of protrusions [Figs. 2-3]; which are arranged in a grating shape, narrowing/pointed portion in a vertical cross section, as shown in Fig. 3, [0065]. Therefore, Shinichi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as previously presented. The newly added limitation, which was in claim 5, and now moved to claim 1 is about the pore size. The claim is silent about the wavelength and material of the substrate/member other than “a member for terahertz equipment” in the preamble. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies, i.e. “.. member in which loss of terahertz waves”, “densification is possible”, and “the effects of suppressing the scattering of terahertz waves” are not recited in the rejected claim. The applicant stated in the remarks “Bodo in which "The pore size of the claimed invention is much larger than that in Bodo, although there is some overlap””. In the rejection the Examiner used Boro and stated, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and used the predictable advantage of combining the teaching of Boro. The Applicant is recommended to add further detail about the member and how it configured for the terahertz equipment to overcome the rejection. And thus, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the same ground of rejections.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi et al. (JP 2009217085, of record) in view of KUEHN BODO et al. (JP-2007290950, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Shinichi teaches a member for terahertz equipment (terahertz spectrometer 100, refer to JP 2009217085), comprising: a substrate main body (substrate 50, [0035], Figs. 2,3) having a first principal surface (top surface of substrate 50) and a second principal surface (bottom surface of substrate 50); and a reflection suppressing portion (anti-reflection microstructure 51, [0035], Figs. 2,3) provided on at least one of the first principal surface or the second principal surface of the substrate main body (in Figs, 2,3, on the top surface of substrate 50), wherein the reflection suppressing portion includes a plurality of protrusions (see Figs. 2-3) which are arranged in a grating shape (see the top surface of substrate 50), and each have a tapered portion in a vertical cross section (narrowing/pointed portion in a vertical cross section, Fig. 3, [0065]).
Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein a porosity of the substrate main body regarding a pore size of 1 μm or more is from 0.5 ppm to 3,000 ppm
Shinichi and Bodo are related as optical device.
Bodo teaches about porosity of the substrate main body and regarding a pore size (Less scattering has been found to be advantageous when the total porosity of the material is less than 1 ppm. Advantageously, the size of the pores present is smaller than 1 μm. [page 4 of machine translation]), but doesn’t explicitly teach a porosity of the substrate main body regarding a pore size of 1 μm or more is from 0.5 ppm to 3,000 ppm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the porosity and the size of the pores of the device of Shinichi, wherein a porosity of the substrate main body regarding a pore size of 1 μm or more is from 0.5 ppm to 3,000 ppm, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to modify wherein a porosity of the substrate main body regarding a pore size of 1 μm or more is from 0.5 ppm to 3,000 ppm for the predictable advantage of having a good transmissivity, [abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a shape selected from a cone shape, a pyramid shape, a truncated cone shape, a truncated pyramid shape, a combination of a cylinder and a cone, a combination of a cylinder and a truncated cone, a combination of a prism and a pyramid, and a combination of a prism and a truncated pyramid (51A, 61A-1, 61B-1 may be replaced by, for example, a square pyramid, a triangular pyramid, a cone, etc, [0065], Figs. 3, 6 ).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above). Shinichi shows in Fig. 2 the width W and height H of the of the triangle and teaches different situations, Height is approximately 60 μm or more, [0009]; The width W and height H of the triangle base are determined by the frequency at which an anti-reflection effect is desired, the degree of anti-reflection, and the direction of the electric field of the terahertz light incident on the V-groove, [0036], Shinichi dieclosed equation to fined the transmittance depending on H and W in [0009, 0037 0040, 0060 and 0070]. Although, Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions in the reflection suppressing portion has a height of from 0.5 Ho (mm) to 2 Ho (mm), and the plurality of protrusions have a period of from 0.4 Ho (mm) to 1.3 Ho (mm), where Ho is expressed by Expression: Ho=300/(f×√εr), in which “f” (GHz) represents a frequency of terahertz waves passing through the first principal surface, and “εr” represents a dielectric constant of the substrate main body. It is noted that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the filing was made to select the plurality of protrusions in the reflection suppressing portion has a height of from 0.5 Ho (mm) to 2 Ho (mm), and the plurality of protrusions have a period of from 0.4 Ho (mm) to 1.3 Ho (mm), where Ho is expressed by Expression: Ho=300/(f×√εr), in which “f” (GHz) represents a frequency of terahertz waves passing through the first principal surface, and “εr” represents a dielectric constant of the substrate main body, for the predictable advantage of obtaining a desired transmittance [abstract and Tech-solution].
Regarding claim 4, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the substrate main body is made of a material selected from quartz glass, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide, spinel, and silicon (semiconductor material is a silicon single crystal, [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above). Bodo teaches the member for terahertz equipment, wherein the substrate main body is made of quartz glass (Quartz glass is preferred as a material to make high quality optical elements, SiO2 soot body thus treated is vitrified in a melting furnace ... to a transparent quartz glass body [see page 2 and 7 of Machine translation]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), Shinichi teach, In FIG. 3, D indicates the propagation direction of the terahertz light, and d1 and d2 indicate the opening position and the bottom position of the V groove 51A; The width W and height H of the base of the triangle are determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, the degree of antireflection, and the direction of the electric field of the terahertz light incident on the V-groove. [page 5 of MT]; in Fig. 4 the horizontal axis represents frequency (THz), and the vertical axis represents transmittance (%), microstructure 51 with W = 20 μm and H = 750 μm, [page 6 of MT]. Shinichi teach the substrate main body has a thickness determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, but doesn’t explicitly teach the substrate main body has a thickness of from 50 μm to 250 μm. It is noted that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the substrate main body thickness wherein the substrate main body has a thickness of from 50 μm to 250 μm. for the predictable advantage of increasing transmittance, as taught by Shinichi in abstract.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the reflection suppressing portion is provided only on the first principal surface (see Fig. 2 and 3, suppressing portion microstructure 51 is provided only on the first principal surface).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 11 (see above), further comprising a terahertz element provided at a position corresponding to the reflection suppressing portion of the second principal surface of the substrate main body (microstructures 61A and 61B are formed on both the entrance surface 62 and the exit surface 64. The terahertz light window material 70 is formed on both surfaces. [Fig. 6 and page 7 of MT]).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 11 (see above), wherein a part in which the reflection suppressing portion is not provided of the first principal surface of the substrate main body has a reinforcing portion provided therein (plate-like silicon substrate in which the incident surface 62 and the emitting surface 64 were mirror-finished, [Fig. 6; page 7 of MT]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 13 (see above), Shinichi teach, in FIG. 3, D indicates the propagation direction of the terahertz light, and d1 and d2 indicate the opening position and the bottom position of the V groove 51A; The width W and height H of the base of the triangle are determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, the degree of antireflection, and the direction of the electric field of the terahertz light incident on the V-groove. [page 5 of MT]; wherein the reinforcing portion has a thickness of d1+d2; d1 and d2 indicate the opening position and the bottom position of the V groove 51A, respectively. [page 5 of MT]; in Fig. 4 the horizontal axis represents frequency (THz), and the vertical axis represents transmittance (%), microstructure 51 with W = 20 μm and H = 750 μm, [page 6 of MT]. Shinichi teach the substrate main body has a thickness determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, but doesn’t explicitly teach the substrate main body has a thickness of from 50 μm to 250 μm. Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach, the reinforcing portion has a thickness of from 0.5 Ho (mm) to 2 Ho (mm). It is noted that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the thickness of from 0.5 Ho (mm) to 2 Ho (mm), for the predictable advantage of increasing transmittance, as taught by Shinichi in abstract.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 13 (see above), wherein the reinforcing portion is formed integrally with the substrate main body (50 made of silicon single crystal, microstructure 51 formed on the incident surface 52, cut surface, that is not processed at all, [page 5 of the MT]).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 13 (see above), wherein the reinforcing portion is fixed to the substrate main body, (50 made of silicon single crystal, microstructure 51 formed on the incident surface 52, cut surface, that is not processed at all, [page 5 of the MT]).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 16 (see above), wherein the reinforcing portion is made of a material selected from quartz glass, silicon, alumina, copper, SUS, and brass (shapes are continuously arranged is formed on the incident surface of a silicon substrate 50 which constitutes the optical component, [abstract]; member 10 includes a plate-shaped silicon substrate, optical component body, 50 made of silicon single crystal, [page 5 of the MT]).
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi et al. and Bodo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houlihan et al. (US 6,700,708, of record).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein an OH group of the substrate main body is preferably 100 ppm or less.
Shinichi and Houlihan are related as optical devices.
Houlihan teaches wherein an OH group of the substrate main body is being used (surface of the backing plate 26 has silanol (Si--OH) groups, [[C-6, L-18-20]). Although Houlihan does not explicitly disclose the an OH group of the substrate main body is preferably 100 ppm or less, it is considered to be within ordinary skill to modify the ppm. It is noted that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the OH group of the substrate main body preferably 100 ppm or less to react with reactive silicon primers to lower the surface tension of the surface.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 6 (see above). Bodo teaches the substrate main body is a molded body of cast molding (quartz seed crystals thus prepared are ground by a dry milling method in a mill lined with quartz glass to produce fine particles of synthetic quartz crystals … particles are placed in a graphite mold and processed at a temperature of 1600 ° C. .. and the mold is kept at that temperature for about 3 hours. Then, it is cooled. This produces a solid cylindrical polycrystalline transparent quartz). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the modified Shinichi wherein the substrate main body is a molded body of cast molding for the predictable advantage of this process make the transparent quartz that is homogeneous and free of internal stress [see page 8 of the Machine translation]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 8 (see above). Bodo further teaches, wherein the substrate main body is made of quartz glass or aluminum oxide (The SiO2 soot body thus treated is vitrified in a melting furnace at a temperature of about 1600 ° C. to a transparent quartz glass body, and this body is subsequently pulverized in a mill lined with quartz glass, [see page 8 of the Machine translation]).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the reflection suppressing portion is provided only on the second principal surface, and the first principal surface has a convex portion provided thereon (Fig. 6 shows reflection suppressing portion are provided on the both principal surfaces, are formed on the silicon substrate 60. For example, a convex lens made of silicon single crystal is used… may be formed on the optical component body having a shape, a concave lens shape, or a spherical shape [page 8 of MT]; optical component body has a convex lens shape / concave lens shape / spherical, [page 3 of MT]; a shape in which a plurality of triangles having the same size and shape are continuously arranged. base of the triangle are determined by the frequency at which the antireflection effect is desired, The triangle is not limited to an isosceles triangle, [page 5, of MT]; V-groove 61A-1 and the V-groove 61B-1 do not have to be formed at symmetrical positions on the silicon substrate 60, [page 7 of MT]; the V grooves 51A, 61A-1, 61B-1, for example, a square pyramid, a triangular pyramid, You may form with a cone etc. If the antireflection fine structure is formed of a quadrangular pyramid, a triangular pyramid, a cone, or the like, [page 8 of MT].
Modified Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach the terahertz equipment, wherein the first principal surface has a convex portion provided thereon
Shinichi and Houlihan are related as optical devices.
Houlihan teaches wherein the first principal surface has a convex portion provided thereon (Fig. 2, plurality of micro-lenses 14, figure shows convex lenses).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the substrate of Shinichi and use a convex portion, as taught by Houlihan for the predictable advantage of saving cost (low-cost micro-lens array, [C-1, L-38-40].
Regarding claim 19, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 18 (see above), Houlihan teaches, wherein the reflection suppressing portion is further provided on the convex portion (see Fig. 2, convex portion 14).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi et al. in view of Bodo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2013/0156053, of record).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 1 (see above), Shinichi teaches in Fig. 6 reflection suppressing portion are provided on the both principal surfaces, are formed on the silicon substrate 60. For example, a convex lens made of silicon single crystal is used… may be formed on the optical component body having a shape, a concave lens shape, or a spherical shape [page 8 of MT]; optical component body has a convex lens shape / concave lens shape / spherical, [page 3 of MT].
Shinichi doesn’t explicitly teach the terahertz equipment, wherein the second principal surface has a concave portion formed therein.
Shinichi and Kondo are related as optical devices.
Kondo teaches wherein the second principal surface has a concave portion formed therein (as shown in FIG. 5, each protrusion 2 includes faces 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d, each of which is concave with respect to an imaginary line "L" corresponding to a flat face, to form a concaved face, [0053]; wherein said first faces and said second faces of each of said protrusions are concave faces (claim 3), groove form a curved concave face viewed in a cross section in the width direction of the groove [0023].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the second surface of substrate of Shinichi wherein the second principal surface has a concave portion formed therein, as taught by Kondo for the predictable advantage that the device capable of emitting terahertz wave from the crystal with a high refractive index such as lithium niobate to the outside of the crystal, [0023].
Regarding claim 21, Modified Shinichi teaches the terahertz equipment according to claim 20 (see above), Kondo teaches, wherein the reflection suppressing portion is further provided on the concave portion (as shown in FIG. 5, each protrusion 2 includes faces 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d, each of which is concave with respect to an imaginary line "L" corresponding to a flat face, to form a concaved face, [0053]; wherein said first faces and said second faces of each of said protrusions are concave faces (claim 3), groove form a curved concave face viewed in a cross section in the width direction of the groove [0023]).
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 RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights