DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 in the reply filed on November 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the last line “transparent in the visible, solids” is grammatically incorrect. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in several locations the term “transparent to the visible solid” is used, while the term “transparent to the visible spectrum solid material” is used in other locations. The former term is unclear and should be amended to be consistent with the latter term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the conjunction “and”, which is usually placed before the last clause, is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites in the first two lines “shaping a surface of a transparent solid material in the visible optical spectrum to increase hydrophilicity without affecting its optical transmissivity”. Because the features of increase hydrophilicity and optical transmissivity are in the preamble of the claim, the Examiner is interpreting the features as not being required. Thus, they are not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, which has been cancelled. Thus, it is unclear what step is being further limited.
Additionally, claim 6 recites a wherein clause to further limit a shaping step of the transparent solid material. However, a shaping step is not claimed in any of the preceding claims. Thus, it is unclear if shaping of the transparent solid material is required.
Additionally, claim 6 recites shaping a glass piece on an electronic device. It is unclear how “a glass piece” is related to method of claim 1, as neither glass or a piece is recited in claim 1. Is it the same as the transparent solid material or different? Also, it is unclear how a glass piece can be shaped on an electronic device. The metes and bounds of the shaping step are indefinite. For example, is the electronic device use as a mold for shaping the glass piece?
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.
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, 3-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (2012/0328905) in view of Hopp et al. (WO 2007138370). Guo discloses a method of shaping a surface of a transparent solid material comprising providing a transparent solid material on a holder (translation stage), selecting a laser fluence value from a range of laser fluence values ([0118]), selecting a wavelength ([0116]), a repetition rate ([0210]) and a pulse duration ([0115]) of a laser pulse from a range of wavelengths, repetition rates and pulse durations (glass sample in table 1), respectively, exposing the surface of the transparent solid material to a focused laser irradiation with a selected wavelength (i.e. 800 nm), a selected repetition rate (i.e. 1kHz), and a selected pulse duration (i.e. 65 fs) by passing the laser beam over the surface of the transparent solid material, while translating the transparent solid material with the laser beam relative to one another ([0218]), and generating at least a part of a desired target nanostructure pattern, such as nanopillars and nanocavities ([0219], figure 38d). Guo further teaches identifying a desired target nanostructure pattern (horizontal microgroove structures) and a desired focused laser spot area (20 mm long microgrooves in a 20x9 mm2 structured area) on the surface of the transparent solid material ([0218]-[0219]). Guo teaches the nanostructure pattern provides for superwicking and superhydrophyllic properties ([0217], [0206]), which provides for an anti-fogging property. However, Guo fails to specify adding a heat dissipating layer.
Like Guo, Hopp also teaches a method for shaping a surface of a transparent solid material, the method comprising irradiating a laser beam on a surface of the transparent solid material to generate a pattern (page 10 lines 1-14, 25-26, page 12 lines 1-10). Hopp further teaches adding a heat dissipating layer 18 on the transparent solid material that can absorb excess heat induced from the laser radiation, wherein the heat dissipating layer absorbs the energy of the laser (page 9 lines 19-24) so as to effect the removal of the desired portions of the surface of the transparent solid material to produce the pattern (page 10 lines 1-12, figure 1). Like Guo, Hopp teaches the pattern is a nanostructure pattern (claim 16). Hopp teaches employing a heat dissipating layer allows for indirect laser machining of the transparent solid material (page 1 lines 5-18). Hopp teaches indirect laser machining is advantageous over direct laser machine which requires expensive high power laser systems and results in excessive heating of the solid material when trying to form fine structures on the surface (page 1 lines 24-29, page 1 lines 1-4), whereas indirect laser machining is cheaper. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the step of adding a heat dissipating layer on the transparent solid material of Guo so as provide for indirect laser machining and reduce cost, while preventing overheating of the solid material.
Regarding claim 3, Guo teaches scanning the transparent solid material across the laser beam ([0218]). Hopp also teaches displacement of the transparent solid material and the laser source relative to each other and suggests scanning the laser beam on the transparent solid material (page 7 lines 1-8), which suggest the transparent solid material is stationary. Hopp also teaches the scanning of the laser relative to the transparent solid material is known and common. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively provided for the scanning of the laser beam on a stationary transparent solid material in the method of Guo, as it is a well-known alternative that predictably provides for successful laser processing of the transparent solid material, as taught by Hopp.
Regarding claim 4, Guo and Hopp disclose the transparent solid material comprises glass ([0218], page 7 lines 9-12, 24-26, respectively).
Regarding claim 6, given the indefiniteness of claim 6, the claim will be interpreted to include a glass piece as the transparent solid material, and the shaped glass piece is employed in an electronic device. Guo teaches the transparent solid material comprises a glass piece (fig. 38, [0088]) that can be used in an electronic device, such as a solar cell ([0205]).
Regarding claim 7, Guo teaches the wavelength is 800 nm, which falls within the claimed range of 100 nm to 6100nm ([0218]).
Regarding claim 8, Guo teaches the pulse duration is 65 fs ([0218]), which is less than 800ps.
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches the laser fluence below 12 J/cm2, or even below 1 J/cm2 ([0118]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 12 J/cm2 to 0.2 J/cm2. Guo further exemplifies laser fluence of 1.1, 0.35, 0.17, and 0.78 J/cm2 ([0147]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741