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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 5/20/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 4-7, 11, 13-14, 17-19, 23-26 as being withdrawn, and claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15-16, 20-22 as being original. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-26 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-V are not independent or distinct inventions, the features of Groups I-IV are not mutually exclusive and may be used together in the same optical component, and Group V is not an unrelated invention. These arguments are not found persuasive and are respectfully traversed.
First, as per M.P.E.P. 806.05(j), though the burden is on the Examiner to provide an example to support the determination of that the inventions are distinct, such examples need not be documented.
It is noted that under the criteria of M.P.E.P. 806.05(c)-806.06, the inventions need to be shown to be independent or distinct. The restriction requirement separated Groups I-V into related products, as claimed. The requirement for restriction mailed 4/9/2026 clearly set forth that each group included separate claim limitations not included, or required, in the other groups and therefore are distinct and would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required (see at least section 2 of the action mailed 4/9/2026 for explicit examples of the claim limitations not required by the other groups). Therefore, it has been shown how the different groups have a materially different design and therefore contain non-overlapping subject matter, as claimed. It is not required that each group not be capable of use together as the groups were broken up by related products and are distinct.
Also, M.P.E.P. 806.05 specifically states that “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.” Due to the mutually exclusive subject matter present in each of the inventions, the Examiner fails to see how, for example, Group II may infringe on Group III, how Group III may infringe on Group V, etc., as currently claimed. Applicant has not provided any evidentiary support to show that each of the listed inventions are not distinct from each other (i.e. mutually exclusive), or that the listed inventions are obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, to expedite prosecution by addressing claims disclosed in the prior art of record relied upon below, and drawn to the limitations of the average particle diameter (φavg) and materials of the nanoparticles, as found in Groups I and IV, Groups I and IV are hereby rejoined and examined below.
Claims 5-7, 17-19 and 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 4/16/2024 and 1/27/2025 were considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 10 and 22, wherein “the adhesive is located farther away from the substrate than the hydrophobic layer to the substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It is noted that it is believed that applicant intended to show this feature in figure 30, but element 1014 is missing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: replacement figure 30 is missing barrel element 30 and hydrophobic layer 1014 as described on page 14 of the specification; and replacement figure 32 is missing surface SS as described on page 14 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-4, 8-16, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an optical component including a low reflection layer wherein the low reflection layer satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12, which includes the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), and the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D), does not reasonably provide enablement for an optical component including a low reflection layer wherein the low reflection layer satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12, which does not include the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), and the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors considered when determining if the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue include, but are not limited to: 1) nature of the invention, 2) state of the prior art, 3) relative skill of those in the art, 4) level of predictability, 5) existence of working samples, 6) breadth of claims, 7) amount of direction or guidance by the inventor, and 8) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The nature of the invention is drawn to an optical component including at low reflection layer wherein the low reflection layer satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12.
The state of the art discloses optical components including similar low reflection layers including a plurality of nanoparticles arranged in a stack configuration, and a number of the plurality of nanoparticles decreasing progressively in a direction away from the substrate (see at least embodiments 1-10, shown in figures 1-1 through 1-10, paras. [0010]-[0020], [0059]-[0066], [0075]-[0078], [0084]-[0087], TABLE 1 of Chu).
The level of skill in the art is related to the areas of low reflection layers.
The disclosed embodiments wherein the low reflection layer satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12 all include at least the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), and the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D) (see at least pages 16-24 of the specification), which are interpreted as being necessary for achieving the low reflection layer wherein the low reflection layer satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12.
Applicants’ claims are excessively broad due, in part, to the complex and diverse nature of forming and measuring the properties of low reflection layers.
Due to the large quantity of experimentation necessary to determine when the technical problems of the prior art/invention may be overcome while achieving a low reflection layer which satisfies the condition for G1015/G2025, as set forth in claims 1 and 12, without including at least the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), and the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D), the lack of direction/guidance presented in the specification regarding same, the absence of sufficient working examples directed to same, the complex nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the breadth of the claims which fail to recite at least the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), and the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D), undue experimentation would be required of the skilled artisan to make and/or use the claimed invention in its full scope.
Therefore, the specification fails to teach the skilled artisan how to make and/or use the claimed apparatus without resorting to undue experimentation.
Claims 2-4, 8-11, 13-16, 20-23 are rejected for inheriting the scope of enablement issues of claims 1 and 12.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-16, 20-23 are 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.
Claims 1 and 12 require grayscale values for G1015/G2025 derived from an image captured from a scanning electron microscope, but no measurement or analysis conditions for determining G1015 or G2025 are set forth. For example, pages 8 and 9 of the specification describe how it is possible to collect images with different bit depths, but that the bit depth of the image captured by the scanning electron microscope should be 8 bits, and that the minimum grayscale value for the image is 0 (black) and the maximum value is 255 (white). However, none of these measurement conditions are present in at least claims 1 and 12, and therefore the claims are indefinite since it cannot be determined what type of images are required for determining the grayscale values, or what scale/range is used for measuring the grayscale values.
Claims 2-4, 8-11, 13-16, 20-23 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
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 1-4, 11-12, 13-16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0174167 A1, of record (hereafter Chu).
Regarding claims 1-3, as best understood, Chu discloses an optical component comprising:
a substrate (see at least a surface of the optical element, para. [0006]); and
a low reflection layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (see at least the low reflection layer on a surface of the optical element, para. [0006]), and the low reflection layer comprising:
a plurality of nanoparticles arranged in a stack configuration, and a number of the plurality of nanoparticles decreasing progressively in a direction away from the substrate (see at least embodiments 1-10, shown in figures 1-1 through 1-10, paras. [0010]-[0020], [0059]-[0066], [0075]-[0078], [0084]-[0087], TABLE 1);
wherein an average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is φavg, and the following condition is satisfied:
50nm < φavg < 185 nm (see at para. [0087], TABLE 1, element DC).
Chu does not specifically disclose that a scanning electron microscope is used to capture an image of the low reflection layer from a top view perspective, the scanning electron microscope captures an area ranging from 2 µm2 to 200 µm2, or from 4 µm2 to 130 µm2, of the low reflection layer, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27.
However, it is noted that in product and apparatus claims, when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Chu are the same as that recited in claim(s) 1, with respect to the optical component and low reflection layer, it is asserted that the structure of Chu would have the same results as claimed. For example, it is expected that the low reflection layer may be scanned by a scanning electron microscope to produce an image of a desired area (e.g. 2 µm2 to 200 µm2, or 4 µm2 to 130 µm2) such that it may be shown that a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27. Since 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 anticipated or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the properties of low reflection layer of the optical component of Chu with a scanning electron microscope, such that a scanning electron microscope is used to capture an image of the low reflection layer from a top view perspective, the scanning electron microscope captures an area ranging from 2 µm2 to 200 µm2, or from4 µm2 to 130 µm2 of the low reflection layer, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27, for the purpose of measuring and achieving desired reflection suppression properties of the low reflection layer for a particular application.
It is noted that the low reflection layer having specific grayscale values for G1015 and G2025, as set forth in claim 1, are considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the low reflection layer, such as the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D), the thickness of a hydrophobic layer (T), a water contact angle (θ), as set forth in at least specification pages 11-13, 17-24, as being key to achieving low reflection performance, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987).
M.P.E.P. 2114:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Chu further discloses that the average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is φavg, and the following condition is satisfied: 60 nm<φavg < 120 nm (see at para. [0087], TABLE 1, element DC).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Chu further discloses that a main component of the plurality of nanoparticles is one of SiO2, TiO2 and Al2O3 (see at least paras. [0062], [0076]-[0078], [0085]-[0087], TABLE 1).
Regarding claims 12, 15-16, as best understood, Chu discloses an optical component comprising:
a substrate (see at least a surface of the optical element, para. [0006]); and
a low reflection layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (see at least the low reflection layer on a surface of the optical element, para. [0006]), and the low reflection layer comprising:
a plurality of nanoparticles arranged in a stack configuration, and a number of the plurality of nanoparticles decreasing progressively in a direction away from the substrate (see at least embodiments 1-10, shown in figures 1-1 through 1-10, paras. [0010]-[0020], [0059]-[0066], [0075]-[0078], [0084]-[0087], TABLE 1).
Chu does not specifically disclose that a scanning electron microscope is used to capture an image of the low reflection layer from a top view perspective, the scanning electron microscope captures an area ranging from 1 µm2 to 2000 µm2, or from 4 µm2 to 130 µm2, of the low reflection layer, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27.
However, it is noted that in product and apparatus claims, when the structure and composition recited in the reference(s) is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see M.P.E.P. 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Chu are the same as that recited in claim(s) 12, with respect to the optical component and low reflection layer, it is asserted that the structure of Chu would have the same results as claimed. For example, it is expected that the low reflection layer may be scanned by a scanning electron microscope to produce an image of a desired area (e.g. 1 µm2 to 2000 µm2, or 4 µm2 to 130 µm2) such that it may be shown that a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27. Since 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 anticipated or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the properties of low reflection layer of the optical component of Chu with a scanning electron microscope, such that a scanning electron microscope is used to capture an image of the low reflection layer from a top view perspective, the scanning electron microscope captures an area ranging from 1 µm2 to 2000 µm2, or from4 µm2 to 130 µm2 of the low reflection layer, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 100 to 150 is G1015, a number of pixels in the image with grayscale values ranging from 200 to 250 is G2025, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 < G1015/G2025 < 40, or 9 < G1015/G2025 < 27, for the purpose of measuring and achieving desired reflection suppression properties of the low reflection layer for a particular application.
It is noted that the low reflection layer having specific grayscale values for G1015 and G2025, as set forth in claim 12, are considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the low reflection layer, such as the material(s) of the nanoparticles, the average particle diameter (φavg), the height difference of the thickness of the low reflection layer (D), the thickness of a hydrophobic layer (T), a water contact angle (θ), as set forth in at least specification pages 11-13, 17-24, as being key to achieving low reflection performance, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987).
M.P.E.P. 2114:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Chu further discloses that the average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is φavg, and the following condition is satisfied: 50 nm<φavg < 185 nm (see at para. [0087], TABLE 1, element DC).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Chu further discloses that the average particle diameter of the plurality of nanoparticles is φavg, and the following condition is satisfied: 60 nm<φavg < 120 nm (see at para. [0087], TABLE 1, element DC).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Chu further discloses that a main component of the plurality of nanoparticles is one of SiO2, TiO2 and Al2O3 (see at least paras. [0062], [0076]-[0078], [0085]-[0087], TABLE 1).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0174167 A1, of record (hereafter Chu) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kusaka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0110637 A1, of record (hereafter Kusaka).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, as best understood, Chu does not specifically disclose a water contact angle of the surface of the substrate is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 degrees < θ < 130 degrees.
However, Kusaka is related to Chu since Kusaka also discloses a low reflection layer (see at least paras. [0029], [0031], [0033], [0040], [0060], [0069] of Kusaka), wherein a water contact angle of the surface of the substrate is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 degrees < θ < 130 degrees (see at least paras. [0066]-[0068], [0074], [0079]-[0082] of Kusaka).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component of Chu to include the teachings of Kusaka so that a water contact angle of the surface of the substrate is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 90 degrees < θ < 130 degrees, for the purpose of achieving a desired wettability of the surface for a particular application (see at least paras. [0066]-[0068], [0074], [0079]-[0082] of Kusaka).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0174167 A1, of record (hereafter Chu) in view of Kusaka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0110637 A1, of record (hereafter Kusaka) as applied to claim 8 and 20 above, and further in view of Takei et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0178806 A1, of record (hereafter Takei).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, as best understood, Chu does not specifically disclose that the low reflection layer further comprises a hydrophobic layer located farther away from the substrate than the plurality of nanoparticles to the substrate, a thickness of the hydrophobic layer is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 10 nm<T<50 nm.
However, Takei is related to Chu since Takei also discloses a low reflection layer (see at least the abstract, figure 6, and paras. [0103]-[0104] of Takei), wherein the low reflection layer further comprises a hydrophobic layer located farther away from the substrate than the plurality of nanoparticles to the substrate (see at least para. [0144] of Takei).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component of Chu in view of Kusaka to include the teachings of Takei so that the low reflection layer further comprises a hydrophobic layer located farther away from the substrate than the plurality of nanoparticles to the substrate, for the purpose of imparting water repellency (see at least para. [0144] of Takei).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a desired thickness for the hydrophobic layer, such as a thickness of the hydrophobic layer being T, and the following condition is satisfied: 10 nm<T<50 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the thickness of the hydrophobic layer be 10 nm<T<50 nm, for the purpose achieving desired optical and physical characteristics, such as following the shape of the surface of the low reflection layer while imparting water repellent properties. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Tsai et al., US 12,546,920 B2, discloses a similar low reflection layer including nanoparticles (figs. 6, 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/15/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights