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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending. Claims 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect to claim(s) in the Non-Final rejection dated 12/19/2025 filed 03/03/2026 are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 7-9, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to Amended Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner will address applicable Arguments below.
Regarding Claim 1 The Applicant argues that,
The Amendment “ the projecting part includes a top face that is coplanar with the surface of the glass substrate”, is not disclosed by Ikeno, since the “dot” is formed by connecting recessed portions.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Ikeno does disclose the projecting part includes a top surface that is coplanar with the surface of the glass substrate as the connecting portions are not recessed but protrusions. For visual clarity, the Examiner has added to this Office Action an original version of JP2008225169 by Ikeno that includes FIG 4A, a figure not fully illustrated in the JP2008225169 by Ikeno foreign reference version provided by the Applicant in the Application Contents portion of the instant Application. See FIG 4A and 4B below, with FIG 4A on the left:
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Now, for clarity, see FIG 4A. only below:
PNG
media_image2.png
649
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The dimples are formed and then etched. FIG 4A illustrates the contour of dimples and the surface of
the glass as the dimples and the surface of the glass are etched. See Annotated FIG 4A. below:
PNG
media_image3.png
1018
1032
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As the etching progresses, the surface contour shape also progresses but coalescing of the etched
dimple boundaries produces a top surface with peaks, or the projecting part, co-planar with the surface
of the glass as the peaks are at the surface of the glass and the valleys of the etches dimples are not at
the surface of the glass. Annotated FIG 4A. illustrates neighboring dots etched and coalesced at the
etched dimple boundaries yet this situation would also be present at the outer contour of the hexagon
defined at the “dot”.
PNG
media_image4.png
627
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ikeno cites this in [0017], “ The diameter of the dimple is initially widened by etching, but after 4 hours,
the flat portion between the dimple and the adjacent dimple disappears completely, and thereafter, the
diameter of the dimple does not change. Eventually, the diameter of the dimple converges to the center
distance between the dimple and the adjacent dimple. On the other hand, the depth of the dimple does
not change while the diameter of the dimple continues to increase, but when it is 5 hours or longer, the
convex portion at the intermediate position between the dimple and the adjacent dimple decreases
according to the etching time”. Here, the top surface of the project part is always co-planar with the
surface of the glass. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 1 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2008225169
(English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Ikeno
et. al. (herein “Ikeno”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Ikeno teaches a glass substrate, comprising,
a glass substrate; [0009], “] In the geometric pattern forming method of the present invention, the workpiece is preferably glass.”
having a surface and a mark; [0011], “] According to the geometric pattern forming method of the present invention, a desired geometric pattern can be accurately formed on the surface of a workpiece…”
comprising ,
a plurality of dots such that the mark is formed on the surface of the glass substrate is disposed; Fig .2 , Fig. 5; A target shape of the dot is an equilateral triangle array as in annotated Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
627
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 illustrates many equilateral triangle arrays, or many dots.
wherein,
each of the dots includes an indentation part as a portion depressed from the surface; Fig. 2 [0014], [0016], “In FIG. 2, the laser irradiation position (dent formation position) corresponding to each geometric pattern is indicated by black dots”, “The workpiece 30 having the depressions is then etched.”, “
and a projecting part projecting from the indentation part in a thickness direction of the glass substrate; [0006], “And a second step of etching the workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric pattern.”, “The diameter of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other. When two concave surfaces interfere, the boundary between the concave surfaces passes through the midpoint of the line connecting the centers of the concave surfaces, and converges to a straight line orthogonal to this line (that is, a straight line in which both centers are line-symmetric) …For this reason, the entire boundary of the concave surface interferes with other concave surfaces, and the boundary of the concave surface becomes a polygonal shape. Further, the polygonal shape is determined by the arrangement of the depressions in the first step.”
and the projecting part extends at a position overlapping a contour of a respective one of the dots or on an inner side of the contour, rather than an outer side of the contour of the respective one of the dots. See the Plan View A and Plan View B of the schematic representations of Fig. 2 of the equilateral triangle array below:
Plan View A:
PNG
media_image5.png
470
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Plan View B:
PNG
media_image6.png
379
874
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein,
the projecting part includes a top face that is coplanar with the surface of the glass substrate;
[0017], FIG 4A. Annotated FIG. 4A, , ““ The diameter of the dimple is initially widened by
etching, but after 4 hours, the flat portion between the dimple and the adjacent dimple
disappears completely, and thereafter, the diameter of the dimple does not change. Eventually,
the diameter of the dimple converges to the center distance between the dimple and the
adjacent dimple. On the other hand, the depth of the dimple does not change while the
diameter of the dimple continues to increase, but when it is 5 hours or longer, the convex
portion at the intermediate position between the dimple and the adjacent dimple decreases
according to the etching time”. As the etching progresses, the surface contour shape also
progresses but coalescing of the etch boundaries produces a top surface of the projecting part
co-planar with the surface of the glass. Annotated FIG 4A. illustrates neighboring dots yet this
situation would be present at the outer contour of the hexagon defined at the “dot”. Here, the
top surface of the projecting part (convex portion) is co-planar with the surface of the glass. See
FIG. 4A and Annotated FIG. 4A below:
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1018
1032
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 - Ikeno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
the projecting part extends from the position overlapping the contour of the respective one of
the dots toward the inner side of the contour, rather than the outer side of the contour of the
respective one of the dots. Ikeno teaches this previously in Claim 1, Plan View A.
Regarding Claim 3 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
assuming that a peripheral edge on an outer side among peripheral edges of the indentation
part is an outer peripheral edge and a peripheral edge other than the outer peripheral edge
among the peripheral edges of the indentation part is an inner peripheral edge, a ratio A of a
length of the inner peripheral edge to a length of the outer peripheral edge satisfies 0.2 < A <
50; [0014], “Since the equilateral triangle forms an equilateral triangle having a side of 20
μm…”; Here, a length of an inner peripheral edge = 20um and a length of the outer peripheral
edge is 20um, where the ratio, A, = 1.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim
1.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
the projecting part passes through at least two points on the contour of the respective one of
the dots (Claim 4).
the projecting part passes through at least four points on the contour of the respective one of
the dots (Claim 5).
See the Plan View C of the schematic representations of Fig. 2 of the equilateral triangle array below, illustrating the projecting part passing through 4 points on the contour as captured by the small circles:
Plan View C
PNG
media_image7.png
386
931
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
a depth of the indentation part is equal to or smaller than 30 um; [0006], [0019], [0020], Fig. 4b,
“The geometric pattern forming method of the present invention is a first method of irradiating
a workpiece with a laser and forming a plurality of depressions on the surface of the workpiece
in an array having a two-dimensional periodicity at intervals. And a second step of etching the
workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses
interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric
pattern… When etching in the second step is started, generation of a concave shape centering
on each depression formed in the first step starts on the surface of the workpiece. The diameter
of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally
the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other.” Here, the initial
dimple array created by the laser is etched, and the dimple diameter increases until the etching
front of each dimple interferes with a neighboring etching front, causing a boundary, which is
the projecting part. Further, ““FIG. 6A shows the SEM image of the depression before etching
and the state after 15 hours of etching when an equilateral triangle dimple array was
produced…”, “...a mirror dimple array having a desired shape can be manufactured by
performing etching. “, “The dimple depth is about 1 μm in all cases…”. Fig. 4 below illustrates
how a dimple diameter changes and depth of the dimple changes during etching to produce the
hexagonal array.
PNG
media_image8.png
518
603
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
assuming that a peripheral edge on an outer side among peripheral edges of the indentation part is an outer peripheral edge and a peripheral edge other than the outer peripheral edge among the peripheral edges of the indentation part is an inner peripheral edge, a ratio A of a length of the inner peripheral edge to a length of the outer peripheral edge satisfies 0.2 < A < 50; [0014], “Since the equilateral triangle forms an equilateral triangle having a side of 20 μm…”; Here, a length of an inner peripheral edge = 20um and a length of the outer peripheral edge is 20um, where the ratio, A, = 1. Also, see Plan View B above.
Regarding Claim 10 and 11, where Claim 11 depends on Claim 10 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 2
above teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
the projecting part passes through at least two points on the contour of the respective one of the dots (Claim 10).
the projecting part passes through at least four points on the contour of the respective one of the dots (Claim 11).
See the Plan View C of the schematic representations of Fig. 2 of the equilateral triangle array, illustrating the projecting part passing through 4 points on the contour as captured by the small circles.
Regarding Claim12– Ikeno in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
a depth of the indentation part is equal to or smaller than 30 um;[0006], [0019], [0020], Fig. 4b,
“The geometric pattern forming method of the present invention is a first method of irradiating
a workpiece with a laser and forming a plurality of depressions on the surface of the workpiece
in an array having a two-dimensional periodicity at intervals. And a second step of etching the
workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses
interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric
pattern… When etching in the second step is started, generation of a concave shape centering
on each depression formed in the first step starts on the surface of the workpiece. The diameter
of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally
the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other.” Here, the initial
dimple array created by the laser is etched, and the dimple diameter increases until the etching
front of each dimple interferes with a neighboring etching front, causing a boundary, which is
the projecting part. Further, ““FIG. 6A shows the SEM image of the depression before etching
and the state after 15 hours of etching when an equilateral triangle dimple array was
produced…”, “...a mirror dimple array having a desired shape can be manufactured by
performing etching. “, “The dimple depth is about 1 μm in all cases…”. Fig. 4 below illustrates
how a dimple diameter changes and depth of the dimple changes during etching to produce the
hexagonal array.
PNG
media_image9.png
466
543
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13 and 14, where claim 14 depends on Claim 13 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 3
above teaches all of the limitations of claim 3.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
the projecting part passes through at least two points on the contour of the respective one of
the dots (Claim 13).
wherein the projecting part passes through at least four points on the contour of the respective
one of the dots (Claim 14).
See the Plan View C of the schematic representations of Fig. 2 of the equilateral triangle array, illustrating the projecting part passing through 4 points on the contour as captured by the small circles.
Regarding Claim 15 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 3.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
a depth of the indentation part is equal to or smaller than 30 um;[0006], [0019], [0020], Fig. 4b,
“The geometric pattern forming method of the present invention is a first method of irradiating
a workpiece with a laser and forming a plurality of depressions on the surface of the workpiece
in an array having a two-dimensional periodicity at intervals. And a second step of etching the
workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses
interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric
pattern… When etching in the second step is started, generation of a concave shape centering
on each depression formed in the first step starts on the surface of the workpiece. The diameter
of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally
the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other.” Here, the initial
dimple array created by the laser is etched, and the dimple diameter increases until the etching
front of each dimple interferes with a neighboring etching front, causing a boundary, which is
the projecting part. Further, ““FIG. 6A shows the SEM image of the depression before etching
and the state after 15 hours of etching when an equilateral triangle dimple array was
produced…”, “...a mirror dimple array having a desired shape can be manufactured by
performing etching. “, “The dimple depth is about 1 μm in all cases…”. Fig. 4 below illustrates
how a dimple diameter changes and depth of the dimple changes during etching to produce the
hexagonal array.
PNG
media_image10.png
466
543
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 4.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
a depth of the indentation part is equal to or smaller than 30 um;[0006], [0019], [0020], Fig. 4b,
“The geometric pattern forming method of the present invention is a first method of irradiating
a workpiece with a laser and forming a plurality of depressions on the surface of the workpiece
in an array having a two-dimensional periodicity at intervals. And a second step of etching the
workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses
interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric
pattern… When etching in the second step is started, generation of a concave shape centering
on each depression formed in the first step starts on the surface of the workpiece. The diameter
of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally
the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other.” Here, the initial
dimple array created by the laser is etched, and the dimple diameter increases until the etching
front of each dimple interferes with a neighboring etching front, causing a boundary, which is
the projecting part. Further, ““FIG. 6A shows the SEM image of the depression before etching
and the state after 15 hours of etching when an equilateral triangle dimple array was
produced…”, “...a mirror dimple array having a desired shape can be manufactured by
performing etching. “, “The dimple depth is about 1 μm in all cases…”. Fig. 4 below illustrates
how a dimple diameter changes and depth of the dimple changes during etching to produce the
hexagonal array.
PNG
media_image11.png
466
543
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17 – Ikeno in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 5.
Ikeno further teaches wherein,
a depth of the indentation part is equal to or smaller than 30 um;[0006], [0019], [0020], Fig. 4b,
“The geometric pattern forming method of the present invention is a first method of irradiating
a workpiece with a laser and forming a plurality of depressions on the surface of the workpiece
in an array having a two-dimensional periodicity at intervals. And a second step of etching the
workpiece, and continuing the etching until the recesses extending around each of the recesses
interfere with each other and the boundary of the recesses has a predetermined geometric
pattern… When etching in the second step is started, generation of a concave shape centering
on each depression formed in the first step starts on the surface of the workpiece. The diameter
of the circumference of each concave surface increases with the progress of etching, and finally
the circumferences of adjacent concave surfaces interfere with each other.” Here, the initial
dimple array created by the laser is etched, and the dimple diameter increases until the etching
front of each dimple interferes with a neighboring etching front, causing a boundary, which is
the projecting part. Further, ““FIG. 6A shows the SEM image of the depression before etching
and the state after 15 hours of etching when an equilateral triangle dimple array was
produced…”, “...a mirror dimple array having a desired shape can be manufactured by
performing etching. “, “The dimple depth is about 1 μm in all cases…”. Fig. 4 below illustrates
how a dimple diameter changes and depth of the dimple changes during etching to produce the
hexagonal array.
PNG
media_image11.png
466
543
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights