DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-19 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 13-14 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.
Claim 14 recites a range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for the refractive index peak-to-valley, but the claim depends from claim 13 which specifies that the peak-to-valley is 1x10-5 or less. As such, a portion of the claim 14 range is greater than the maximum valley allowed by claim 13, and the range of dependent claim 14 is incompatible with the range of claim 13 from which it depends. Because of this, the claim is indefinite under USC 112. For purposes of examining claims 13 and 14 on merits, the range 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for the refractive index peak-to-valley will be considered to cover both claims, as this is the only range that would be compatible with the wording of each claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koike et al (US 8012653 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Koike et al teaches a SiO2-TiO2 glass having an OH content of 10 ppm and a chlorine concentration of 0 ppm (see columns 34-35, lines 55-35). The glass has a variation of OH group concentration of the substrate of 50 ppm or less (see column 3, lines 50-55). Koike et al does not teach the variation in terms of peak-to-valley measured using a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy in transmission, and the plurality of segments including every adjacent segment across a length and a width of the glass body, the length being about 25 mm or more and the width being about 25 mm or more. However, this limitation is only to a certain manner of describing low variation. Because Koike et al teaches a total variation of less than the instantly claimed maximum of 60 ppm, it would inherently have a variation of less than the claimed amount between adjacent segments having the size of the instant claim.
Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the Koike et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the Koike et al glass contains 0 ppm chlorine.
Regarding claim 3, Koike et al teaches that the inventive glasses are free of chlorine. While Koike et al teaches embodiments of the inventive glasses that have fluorine contents, the exemplary glass discussed and cited above is not taught to have any Fl content, and there is no treatment disclosed in the process used to form said exemplary glass that would add any fluorine. As such, the halogen content of the aforementioned Koike et al glass is less than 5 ppm.
Regarding claims 4-5, Koike et al teaches an OH content of 10 ppm in the aforementioned exemplary embodiment. This would constitute the average hydroxyl concentration amongst a plurality of segments chosen to have the sizes given in the instant claim. Thus, the further compositional limitations of the instant claims 4-5 are met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 6-8, Koike et al teaches that the variation in OH in the inventive glass is 10 ppm, and thus the peak-to-valley hydroxyl concentration variation between any two arbitrarily chosen segments having the minimum size of the instant claim would be 10 ppm or less.
Regarding claims 9-10, Koike et al teaches that the inventive glass has a TiO2 concentration of 7 wt% (see column 34, lines 60-62).
Regarding claims 11-12, Koike et al does not specify a peak-to-valley titania concentration variation for the inventive glasses. However, Koike et al teaches that the inventive glasses are produced by a method substantially equivalent to that of the instant claims. The Koike et al glass is produced by first forming soot particles from the same SiCl4 and TiCl4 precursors as can be used in the formation of the instant soot particulate according to the Specification; the soot particles are thereafter consolidated, densified, and formed into glasses under inert atmosphere. There is no step in the instant disclosure that would indicate that the specific peak-to-valley titania concentrations of the instant claims would particularly result therefrom. Therefore, the Koike et al method must be considered as equivalently producing any titania concentration that may be present, and the claimed peak-to-valley properties are considered to be limitations based on measurement and recording, rather than a feature that would uniquely arise in the glasses produced according to the instant disclosure. As a practical matter, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. Because no substantial difference is found between the method of the instant Specification and that taught by Koike et al, the resultant SiO2-TiO2 glasses must be considered equivalent to one another, and the further compositional limitations of claims 11 and 12 are met by the Koike et al teachings.
Regarding claim 15, Koike et al teaches that the crossover temperature of the aforementioned exemplary embodiment glass is 50 °C.
Regarding claim 16, Koike et al teaches glasses having width and length of 50 mm (see column 10, lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 17, Koike et al teaches glasses having width and length of 153 mm (see column 25, lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 18, the dimensions of the arbitrary segments do not impart any necessary differences in composition or structure to the claimed glass as compared to that of Koike et al, which as discussed above has an equivalent low OH variation to that of the instant claims. This variation would be equivalent across segments regardless of the measured segment size, and thus the further limitations of said claim are met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, the Koike et al glasses are used as photomasks.
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 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al (US 8012653 B2).
Regarding claims 13-14, Koike et al teaches that the refractive index variation is preferably at most 0.5x10-4 (see column 9, lines 60-65). This upper bound falls within the ranges of the claims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use these low index variation values because Koike et al teaches that minimizing this variation leads to lower surface roughness. This variation amount is considered to be equivalent to the peak-to-valley of refractive index amongst the arbitrary regions having the sizes of the instant claims. Thus, each limitation of claims 13 and 14 is met by the Koike et al teachings, and the claims are obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free ). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW17 July 2026
Prosecution Insights