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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a light source a wavelength of light emitted from which…” appears to contain some grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al., Low-loss dual-wave laser optics coatings at 1060 nm and 530 nm. SPIE Proceedings, 8016, 80160Y (2011) [hereinafter Wang].
Regarding Claim 2:
Wang teaches:
a transparent substrate made of glass (Page 7 of 9- section 3.2: “a SiO₂ substrate”); and
a dielectric multi-layer film provided on the transparent substrate and containing hafnium oxide (Page 7 of 9- section 3.2: the multilayer “HfO2/SiO2 films were deposited on SiO₂ substrates”),
wherein a surface of the dielectric multi-layer film on a side opposite to the transparent substrate side has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 1.00 nm or less (Page 7 of 9- section 3.2: Wang teaches that the “typical surface roughness of the HfO₂/ SiO₂ multilayer … is less than 0.5 nm.” Wang’s roughness measurements are AFM-based and expressly reported as RMS roughness obtained from AFM, so the reported multilayer surface roughness corresponds to the exposed multilayer surface (the surface opposite the substrate interface). In addition, since the AFM-based root-mean-square (mean-square) roughness for its deposited films (“the RMS roughness obtained from AFM …”), is less than 0.5nm and for any surface height map
S
a
=
m
e
a
n
(
z
)
≤
m
e
a
n
(
z
2
)
=
S
q
(
R
M
S
)
, accordingly, Wang’s multilayer surface roughness < 0.5 nm inherently implies Sa < 0.5 nm (and thus Sa ≤ 1.00 nm)).
Although Wang does not explicitly disclose the preamble of an “optical filter” and instead describes deposition of HfO₂/SiO₂ multilayer optical coatings on SiO₂ substrates, the resulting coated article has the same structural components recited for the “optical filter” (transparent oxide/glass substrate bearing a dielectric multilayer containing HfO₂). A dielectric multilayer stack on a transparent substrate is an interference structure that can be used as an optical filter, and therefore the coated structures taught by Wang correspond to the claimed “optical filter” construction.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Field, et al., Dual-wavelength laser-induced damage threshold of a HfO2/SiO2 dichroic coating developed for high transmission at 527 nm and high reflection at 1054 nm. OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information), 10713, 24–24 (2019) [hereinafter Field].
Regarding Claim 3:
Field teaches:
a transparent substrate made of glass (Page 2-2: “an optically polished fused silica substrate”);
a dielectric multi-layer film containing hafnium oxide (Page 2-Section 2: the dichroic coating consists of “alternating HfO₂ and SiO₂ layers”); and
an adhesion layer provided between the transparent substrate and the dielectric multi-layer film (Page 2-Section 2 and Page 4-Section 3: “The dichroic coating was deposited on an optically polished fused silica substrate,” “depositing a 100-nm SiO₂ adhesion layer before the first layer of HfO₂ was deposited.” that is, a SiO₂ adhesion layer deposited between the fused silica substrate and the multi-layers of “alternating HfO₂ and SiO₂ layers”).
Although Field does not explicitly disclose the preamble of an “optical filter” and instead describes deposition of HfO₂/SiO₂ multilayer optical coatings on SiO₂ substrates, the resulting coated article has the same structural components recited for the “optical filter” (transparent oxide/glass substrate bearing a dielectric multilayer containing HfO₂, and an SiO₂ adhesion layer). A dielectric multilayer stack on a transparent substrate is an interference structure that can be used as an optical filter, and therefore the coated structures taught by Field correspond to the claimed “optical filter” construction.
Regarding Claim 4:
Field teaches the optical filter according to claim 3. Field further teaches wherein the adhesion layer is a layer containing silicon oxide (Page 2-Section 2: “depositing a 100-nm SiO₂, adhesion layer”).
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190192708A1 [hereinafter Ushio] in view of Weingarten et al., Laser polishing and 2PP structuring of inside microfluidic channels in fused silica. Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, 21(11) (2017) [hereinafter Weingarten].
Regarding Claim 1:
Ushio teaches an optical filter (Fig.1 – optical filter 40) comprising:
a transparent substrate made of glass (para. [0088]: “The optical filter 40 ... is composed of a synthetic quartz glass substrate”); and
a dielectric multi-layer film provided on the transparent substrate and containing hafnium oxide (para. [0088]: “The optical filter 40 ... is composed of...dielectric multilayer films, which are constituted of SiO₂ layers and Al2O3 layers laminated alternately, formed on both surfaces of the substrate”).
However, Ushio does not teach wherein a surface of the transparent substrate on the dielectric multi-layer film side has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 0.22 nm or less.
Weingarten teaches wherein a surface of the transparent substrate on the dielectric multi-layer film side has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 0.22 nm or less (Abstract and Page 4- Section 3.1: “postprocessing steps for microfluidics fabricated with selective laser etching (SLE) in fused silica,” “With laser polishing, the microroughness of the SLE surface can be reduced significantly...the roughness Sa can be reduced from 50 to 100 nm down to 0.2 nm. This microroughness is already sufficient for imaging optics.”)
As such, modifying Ushio in view of Weingarten would modify the surface of the glass substrate where the dielectric multi-layer film applied to (as taught by Ushio) be laser polished and have an arithmetic mean height Sa of 0.22 nm or less (as taught by Weingarten).
Ushio is directed to a microbial inactivation/sterilization system that uses a UV optical filter formed by depositing a dielectric multilayer coating on a synthetic quartz glass substrate (i.e., an optical component made by coating glass for UV use). Weingarten is directed to processing fused silica (glass) surfaces to achieve ultra-low areal roughness (Sa ≤ 0.2 nm) suitable for imaging optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Weingarten’s ultra-smooth glass finishing (Sa ≤ 0.22 nm) to the coating-side surface of Ushio’s quartz substrate. One of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to do so since, for a 190–230 nm UV device using a dielectric multilayer interference filter on synthetic quartz, as taught in Ushio, it is well known that substrate microroughness contributes to scatter and degrades transmission/selectivity, and roughness can imprint into the film. Therefore, reducing coating-side substrate microroughness reduces substrate/film-interface roughness and print-through into the dielectric multilayer, thereby reducing interfacial/top-surface roughness and improving UV optical transmission/scatter performance in the 190–230 nm range.
Regarding Claim 5:
Ushio teaches:
a sterilization device capable of subjecting microorganisms to be treated to inactivation treatment (Abstract: “a microbe inactivation processing device that can perform inactivation processing of microbes”), the sterilization device comprising:
a light source a wavelength of light emitted from which is in a wavelength range of 190 nm to 230 nm (Abstract: “a light source configured to emit light having a wavelength within a wavelength range of 190 nm to 237 nm”).
In addition, Ushio in view of Weingarten teaches the optical filter according to claim 1, as previously discussed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushio in view of Weingarten, further in view of US 20080007698A1 [hereinafter Gupta].
Regarding Claim 6:
Ushio in view of Weingarten teaches the sterilization device according to claim 5. However, the combined references do not specifically note that a retainer that retains the optical filter in a curved form.
Gupta teaches a retainer that retains the optical filter in a curved form (Fig.1 and para. [0013]: discloses an optical filter 34 includes “a curved structure … configured to filter selected wavelengths of light … such that desired wavelengths … pass-through,” i.e., a curved optical filter. The filter is mounted in the device assembly (Fig. 1), and that mounting structure functions as the claimed retainer that retains the filter in its curved form).
Ushio teaches using an optical filter in a 190–230 nm microbe-inactivation device and already recognizes that filter performance depends on optical geometry/incident angle. Gupta teaches implementing the filter as a curved structure that still filters selected wavelengths (passes desired wavelengths while blocking others), i.e., a known optical design to fit the optical path/geometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the retained filter of Ushio to a curved form as taught by Gupta to better match the optical geometry (beam shaping/collection/incident-angle management) while preserving the required wavelength filtering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881