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
Claims 1-20, received 7/19/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 14, “on-line monitoring” should be changed to “in-line monitoring”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to for inheriting the same informalities through their dependency from claim 14.
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 14-15 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 the limitation “the coating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crawford et al., "Femtosecond laser micromachining of grooves in silicon with 800 nm pulses." Applied Physics A 80.8 (2005): pages 1717-1724. DOI: 10.1007/s00339-004-2941-2 (hereafter Crawford; Published online 8/31/2004).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a method for altering an optical property of a nanostructured surface of an optic, comprising:
placing the optic under vacuum (see at least page 1717, column 2); and
exposing an area of the nanostructured surface of the optic to an irradiation source for a predetermined time and impinging energy such that irradiation from the irradiation source changes the nanostructured surface in the exposed area thereby altering the optical property (see at least pages 1720-1722, sections 3.3 and 3.4, wherein once the first machined groove is formed the structure is considered a nanostructured surface and subsequent multiple passes of irradiation alter the optical properties of the nanostructured surface).
Regarding claim 7, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the irradiation source is one or more of a light source, an electron beam, a particle beam, and an ion beam (see at least page 1717, column 2, Ti:sapphire laser).
Regarding claim 8, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the nanostructured surface is a porous surface, a grating, or other metasurface (see at least page 1702, column 2, Figure 5, wherein the grooves form a grating).
Regarding claim 11, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the exposed area of the nanostructured surface is changed by local heating (see at least page 1719, column 1, heat diffusion length).
Regarding claim 13, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein a spot diameter of the irradiation is smaller than the exposed area and wherein the irradiation is moved to expose the area (see at least page 1717, column 2, computer-controlled xy translation stage).
Regarding claim 16, Crawford discloses a system for altering a nanostructured surface of an optic, comprising:
a vacuum chamber for placing the optic under vacuum (see at least page 1717, column 2);
an irradiation source configured to expose at least a portion of an area of the nanostructured surface with irradiation (see at least page 1717, column 2, Ti:sapphire laser);
a processor in electronic communication with the irradiation source and configured to direct the irradiation for a predetermined time and irradiation energy such that the irradiation changes the nanostructured surface in the exposed area thereby altering an optical property (see at least pages 1717, 1720-1722, sections 2, 3.3 and 3.4, wherein once the first machined groove is formed the structure is considered a nanostructured surface and subsequent multiple passes of irradiation alter the optical properties of the nanostructured surface; It is noted that a processor must necessarily control the turning on and off of the irradiation source whether that processor is a computer or a human with a human brain).
Regarding claim 17, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 16, further comprising a scanner for moving the irradiation across the nanostructured surface of the optic in at least two dimensions, wherein the scanner is in electronic communication with the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the scanner to move the irradiation to expose the area of the nanostructured surface (see at least page 1717, column 2, computer-controlled xy translation stage).
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 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazansky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0111470 A1 (hereafter Kazansky) in view of Sakakura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0265798 A1 (hereafter Sakakura) and Shah et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0226287 A1 (hereafter Shah).
Regarding claim 1, Kazansky discloses a method for altering an optical property of a nanostructured optic (see at least the title, abstract, para. [0010]), comprising:
placing the optic (see at least figures 5(a) and 5(b), element 30); and
exposing an area of the nanostructured surface of the optic to an irradiation source for a predetermined time and impinging energy such that irradiation from the irradiation source changes the nanostructured surface in the exposed area thereby altering the optical property (see at least figures 5(c) and 5(d), element 30, figures 8A-8B and 10, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0058], [0064]-[0067], [0069]-[0076]).
Kazansky does not specifically disclose that the nanostructure is on a surface of the optic.
However, Sakakura is related to Kazansky as both Sakakura and Kazansky are drawn to methods/apparatuses for delivering femtosecond laser pulses to a substrate for forming an optic (see at least the title and abstracts of Kazansky and Sakakura, and paras. [0027]-[0030] of Sakakura), wherein Sakakura teaches that the optical pulses may be delivered to any position on or in the substrate at or below the surface (see at least paras. [0001], [0035], [0066] of Sakakura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky to include the teachings of Sakakura so that the nanostructures form a nanostructured surface of the optic, for the purpose of allowing birefringent nanostructures to be formed at any desired position on or in the substrate at or below the surface, and/or to make use of the whole volume of the optic, and/or to optimize the position of the birefringent nanostructures for a particular application.
Additionally, Kazansky does not specifically disclose that the optic is placed under vacuum.
However, Shah is related to Kazansky as both Shah and Kazansky are drawn to methods/apparatuses for delivering femtosecond laser pulses to a substrate (see at least the title and abstracts of Kazansky and Shah, and para. [0013] of Shah), wherein Shah teaches that a substrate for forming the nanostructured surface may be placed under vacuum (see at least figure 12, element 121, paras. [0068]-[0069] of Shah).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky to include the teachings of Shah so that the optic is placed under vacuum, for the purpose of using a known fabrication device/technique to allow control of the formation characteristics of the nanostructure and prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 2, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the optical property is birefringence and the irradiation changes the nanostructured surface thereby altering retardance (see at least figures 5-7, paras. [0010], [0053]-[0060] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 4, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the nanostructured surface is a birefringent dielectric (see at least paras. [0029], [0053], [0063] of Kazansky).
Kazansky does not specifically disclose that the surface is a birefringent coating.
However, Shah further teaches that the method and apparatus for femtosecond laser processing may be used for depositing material on a target substrate (see at least paras. [0013], [0085] of Shah).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah to include the further teachings of Shah so that the surface is a birefringent coating, for the purpose of using a known fabrication device/technique to form coatings of at least one material for achieving desired optical and physical characteristics of the optic.
Regarding claim 7, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the irradiation source is one or more of a light source, an electron beam, a particle beam, and an ion beam (see at least the abstract and para. [0073] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 8, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the nanostructured surface is a porous surface, a grating, or other metasurface (see at least paras. [0029], [0037], [0063] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 9, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the irradiation source is configured to penetrate into the material undergoing processing to a depth which is the same as a thickness of the nanostructured surface (see at least figures 8A-8B, elements 44a, 44b, 30, paras. [0064]-[0065] of Kazansky, as well as para. [0035] of Sakakura and the combination set forth above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the vacuum is less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an appropriate level of vacuum for the vacuum chamber, such as less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr, 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 choose the vacuum to be is less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr for the purpose of allowing control of the formation characteristics of the nanostructure and preventing contamination of the optic. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Additionally, it is noted that the application does not describe any criticality of the vacuum pressure level being less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr, and merely states that the process is performed under high vacuum to avoid trapping air within the coating (application paras. [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the exposed area of the nanostructured surface is changed by local heating (see at least paras. [0030]-[0031], [0035], [0063] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 13, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein a spot diameter of the irradiation is smaller than the exposed area and wherein the irradiation is moved to expose the area (see at least figures 8A-8B, elements 44a, 44b, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0039]-[0040], [0051]-[0052], [0064]-[0065] of Kazansky).
Regarding claims 14-15, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kazansky does not specifically disclose an in-line monitoring the optical property of the coating during irradiation exposure, or that the polarization of the nanostructured surface is monitored using a polarization sensitive camera, a Mueller polarimeter, or both.
However, Shah further teaches that the method and apparatus for femtosecond laser processing may include an in-line monitoring of the optic during irradiation exposure, and the precise monitoring and coordination of laser performance and beam characteristics, such as polarization (see at least figure 10, beam profiler element 104 (e.g. CCD camera), and/or beam position detector element 105 (e.g. CCD camera), paras. [0034], [0061]-[0063], [0070], [0073]-[0077] of Shah).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah to include the further teachings of Shah so that the method further includes in-line monitoring the optical property of the coating during irradiation exposure, and so that the polarization of the nanostructured surface is monitored using a polarization sensitive camera, a Mueller polarimeter, or both, for the purpose of monitoring the alteration of the optical property to ensure a desired alteration.
Regarding claim 16, Kazansky discloses a system for altering a nanostructured optic (see at least the title, abstract, para. [0010]), comprising:
placing the optic (see at least figures 5(a) and 5(b), element 30);
an irradiation source configured to expose at least a portion of an area of the nanostructured surface with irradiation (see at least elements 32, 32a, 32b);
a processor in electronic communication with the irradiation source and configured to direct the irradiation for a predetermined time and irradiation energy such that the irradiation changes the nanostructured surface in the exposed area thereby altering an optical property (see at least figures 8A-8B, elements 50a and 50b, paras. [0064]-[0067]).
Kazansky does not specifically disclose that the nanostructure is on a surface of the optic.
However, Sakakura is related to Kazansky as both Sakakura and Kazansky are drawn to methods/apparatuses for delivering femtosecond laser pulses to a substrate for forming an optic (see at least the title and abstracts of Kazansky and Sakakura, and paras. [0027]-[0030] of Sakakura), wherein Sakakura teaches that the optical pulses may be delivered to any position on or in the substrate at or below the surface (see at least paras. [0001], [0035], [0066] of Sakakura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky to include the teachings of Sakakura so that the nanostructures form a nanostructured surface of the optic, for the purpose of allowing birefringent nanostructures to be formed at any desired position on or in the substrate at or below the surface, and/or to make use of the whole volume of the optic, and/or to optimize the position of the birefringent nanostructures for a particular application.
Additionally, Kazansky does not specifically disclose that the optic is placed in a vacuum chamber under vacuum.
However, Shah is related to Kazansky as both Shah and Kazansky are drawn to methods/apparatuses for delivering femtosecond laser pulses to a substrate (see at least the title and abstracts of Kazansky and Shah, and para. [0013] of Shah), wherein Shah teaches that a substrate for forming the nanostructured surface may be placed in a vacuum chamber under vacuum (see at least figure 12, element 121, paras. [0068]-[0069] of Shah).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky to include the teachings of Shah so that the optic is placed in a vacuum chamber under vacuum, for the purpose of using a known fabrication device/technique to allow control of the formation characteristics of the nanostructure and prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 17, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 16, further comprising a scanner for moving the irradiation across the nanostructured surface of the optic in at least two dimensions, wherein the scanner is in electronic communication with the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the scanner to move the irradiation to expose the area of the nanostructured surface (see at least figures 8A-8B, elements 50a, 50b, 44a, 44b, paras. [0064]-[0067] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 18, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 16, wherein the irradiation source is configured to change the nanostructure of a birefringent nanostructured surface thereby altering a retardance of the nanostructured surface (see at least figures 5-7, paras. [0010], [0053]-[0060] of Kazansky).
Regarding claim 19, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 16, wherein the irradiation source is a laser having an emission wavelength selected to penetrate into the optic to a depth which is the same as a thickness of the nanostructured layer (see at least elements 32, 32a, 32b, paras. [0031], [0053], [0063]-[0065], [0067], [0071], [0073] of Kazansky, as well as para. [0035] of Sakakura and the combination set forth above with respect to claim 16).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al., "Femtosecond laser micromachining of grooves in silicon with 800 nm pulses." Applied Physics A 80.8 (2005): pages 1717-1724. DOI: 10.1007/s00339-004-2941-2 (hereafter Crawford; Published online 8/31/2004).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford discloses that the vacuum chamber has a vacuum of about 0.1mbar, or 0.075 Torr, but does not specifically disclose that the vacuum is less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an appropriate level of vacuum for the vacuum chamber, such as less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr, 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 choose the vacuum to be is less than or equal to 2.5x10-2 Torr for the purpose of allowing control of the formation characteristics of the nanostructure and preventing contamination of the optic. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazansky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0111470 A1 (hereafter Kazansky) in view of Sakakura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0265798 A1 (hereafter Sakakura) and Shah et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0226287 A1 (hereafter Shah) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dmitriev, U.S. Patent Number 9,753,366 B2 (hereafter Dmitriev).
Regarding claim 20, Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah discloses the limitations of claim 16, wherein Kazansky further includes a polarized light source (see at least the abstract and para. [0054] of Kazansky) and Shah further includes relative monitoring of the processing (see at least figure 10, beam profiler element 104 (e.g. CCD camera), and/or beam position detector element 105 (e.g. CCD camera), paras. [0034], [0061]-[0063], [0070], [0073]-[0077] of Shah).
Kazansky does not specifically disclose a polarization analyzer configured to receive light from the polarized light source by way of the optic to enable relative monitoring of the processing.
However, Dmitriev is related to Kazansky as both Dmitriev and Kazansky are drawn to methods/apparatuses for delivering femtosecond laser pulses to a substrate (see at least the title and abstracts of Kazansky and Dmitriev, and col. 7, line 29 through col. 8, line 56 of Dmitriev), wherein Dmitriev teaches a camera configured to receive light from a light source by way of the optic to enable relative monitoring of the processing (see at least col. 8, lines 48-56 of Dmitriev).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kazansky in view of Sakakura and Shah to include the teachings of Dmitriev, and the further teachings of Shah, so that the system further includes a polarization analyzer configured to receive light from the polarized light source by way of the optic to enable relative monitoring of the processing, for the purpose of for the purpose of monitoring the alteration of the optical property (i.e. birefringence) by the polarized light source to ensure a desired alteration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the method wherein the retardance is reduced by the irradiation, as generally set forth in claim 3, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 2 and 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the method wherein the birefringent coating is fabricated by a glancing angle deposition (GLAD), as generally set forth in claim 5, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 4 and 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and therefore is objected to for at least the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the method wherein the nanostructured surface is a porous surface and the exposed area of the nanostructured surface is changed by local heating to remove porosity, as generally set forth in claim 12, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 12 depends.
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 6/18/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights