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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A1 and Species B1 in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and nonelected species A2 and claim 14 is limited as partially being drawn to nonelected species B2-B6 there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 35 defines Figures 1B and 1D as at least 4 -6 layers but later, in paragraph 88, are described as at least 5 - 7 layers
Paragraph 92 “customary SiO2-terminating layer which results from the doping of layer composed substantially of SiO2 with a defined proportion of ZrO2”
Unclear if prior art of current invention
Paragraph 93 has floating “n” after refractive index in first line
Related to above, Figure 5 is not described in detail and is where “n” belongs in relation
Paragraph 69 mentions chemically or thermally toughened substrates, but does not explain examples or describe more detail
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Henn et al (US-20150355382-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henn et al teaches a coated substrate (see e.g. coated substrate in abstract), comprising: a substrate (see e.g. substrate in paragraphs 10 and 42); and a multilayered antireflective coating built up from layers having different refractive indices (see e.g. high and low refractive indexes in paragraphs 10-11 and 17) and on at least one side of the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2), wherein layers having a relatively high refractive index and layers having a relatively low refractive index alternate (see e.g. alternating low refractive index layers and high refractive index layers in paragraph 10). Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Henn et al (US-20150355382-A1) Published 2015
“Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). In this case, Henn et al does not specify the workable ranges for the proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely the preferred composition of silicon and/or doped silicon of 1 to 99 wt.% with 85 to 95 wt.% being preferred (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12), leaving room for another oxide such as zirconium oxide (see e.g. one or more oxides from a group containing zirconium in paragraph 12) in an amount as much as 0 to 5 wt.%. Additionally, Henn et al shows that the glass and coated layers have the same properties (see e.g. Table 1). It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Henn et al.
Property/Test
Prior Art Henn et al
Instant Application
Crystallites size
Small size of 5 – 15 nm (paragraph 18)
Small size of 5-15 nm (paragraph 54)
Haze via Bayer Test (ASTM D 1003, D1044)
Haze is higher by a maximum of 5% or even only a maximum of 3% than the haze of the coated substrate before test (paragraph 51)
Haze at most 5% or even at most 3% higher than haze of coated substrate before test (paragraph 59)
Hardness to modulus of elastic Ratio
Hard material layer at least 0.08 preferably greater than 0.1 (paragraph 23)
Coated substrate at least 0.08 and optionally greater than 0.1 (paragraph 61)
Hardness via Martens hardness DIN EN ISO 14577
N/A
Coated substrate has hardness of 3.5 to 7 GPa (paragraph 63)
Elastic Modulus
Hard material layer range of 80-250 GPa, preferably 110-200 GPa (paragraph 21
Coated substrate less than 150 GPa preferably less than 100 GPa (paragraph 64)
Thermal Expansion Coefficient
7
×
10
-
6
t
o
10
×
10
-
6
1
/
K
with coatings preferably similar to substrate to avoid stress (paragraph 43)
Coatings are preferably similar to substrate to avoid stress (paragraph 60)
Table 1: Comparing properties of Henn et al (US-20150355382-A1) and instant application
Regarding claim 2, Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
“Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). In this case, Henn et al does not specify the workable ranges for the proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely the preferred composition of silicon and/or doped silicon of 1 to 99 wt.% with 85 to 95 wt.% being preferred (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12), leaving room for another oxide such as zirconium oxide (see e.g. one or more oxides from a group containing zirconium in paragraph 12) in an amount as much as 0 to 5 wt.%. Additionally, Henn et al shows that the glass and coated layers have the same properties (see e.g. Table 1). It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Henn et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Henn et al teaches at least one layer having a relatively low refractive index is an uppermost layer of the multilayered antireflective coating (see e.g. third low refractive index layer “8” is the uppermost layer in paragraph 9 and Figure 2, this ensures the anti-reflective effect in paragraph 48). Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 4, Henn et al teaches that the antireflective coating (see e.g. five layered coating in paragraph 9) comprises at least two layers having a relatively high refractive index and at least two layers having a relatively low refractive index (see e.g. where the coating is made of two low refractive index layers, first “4” and second “6” and two high refractive index layers first “5” and second “7” in paragraph 9 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Henn et al teaches the layers having a relatively low refractive index have a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm in a range from 1.3 to 1.6 (see e.g. at the wavelength of 550, the refractive index for the low refractive index range is 1.3 to 1.6 in paragraph 11) and/or the layers having a relatively high refractive index have a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm in a range from 1.8 to 2.3 (see e.g. at the wavelength of 550, the refractive index for the high refractive index range is 1.8 to 2.3 in paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Henn et al teaches the further layers having a relatively low refractive index contain SiO2 or doped SiO2 or Al-doped SiO2 (see e.g. low refractive index layers consist of SiO2 or doped SiO2, or an aluminum-doped SiO2 in paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 7, Henn et al teaches that the layers having a relatively high refractive index are an oxide, silicide, carbide or nitride or mixed forms thereof of one or more metallic and semiconducting components selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon, boron, zirconium, titanium, nickel, tin, hafnium, chromium, and doped variants thereof (see e.g. high refractive index layers may be made out of materials such as pure aluminum nitride or carbides, or silicon, or boron, or zirconium, titanium, nickel, chromium, and carbon in paragraph 35 and additionally can be made of boron nitride in addition to aluminum nitride or silicon nitride (AIN:SiN) in paragraphs 40-41).
Regarding claim 8, Henn et al teaches that at least one layer having a relatively high refractive index is a transparent hard material layer (see e.g. high refractive index layer or layers of coating provided in form of transparent hard material layers in paragraph 14) containing crystalline aluminum nitride having a hexagonal crystal structure with a predominating (001) preferred direction (see e.g. includes crystalline aluminum nitride (AIN) having a hexagonal crystal structure in the predominant (001) direction in paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 9, Henn et al teaches that the antireflective coating has a total layer thickness in a range from 200 nm to 400 nm (see e.g. the thickness of the combined coating would be between 190 nm to 1,260 nm in paragraph 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is transparent (see e.g. the substrate may be a glass meant for watches and has a coating made of hard material layers that are transparent for visible and infrared light in paragraphs 16 and 42-43).
Regarding claim 13, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a glass, an optical glass, a crystal for optical purposes, a plastic for optical purposes, or a glass ceramic (see e.g. the substrate is a glass, such as optical glasses, crystals for optical uses, or glass ceramics that can be used for optical purposes and components in paragraphs 16 and 42).
Regarding claim 14, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a glass selected from the group consisting of sapphire glass (see e.g. glasses can be used as substrates, in particular sapphire glasses, with the present invention being particularly advantageous with sapphire glass in paragraphs 42-43).
Regarding claim 15, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a chemically or thermally toughened glass (see e.g. embodiment where substrate is toughened glass, chemically or thermally tempered glass in paragraph 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate taught in Henn et al with the chemically or thermally toughened glass taught in the embodiment of Henn et al because the tougher the substrate the more durable and the more uses it will have in application.
Regarding claim 17, Henn et al teaches a component (see e.g. optical component in paragraph 57), comprising: a coated substrate (see e.g. coated substrate in abstract), comprising: a substrate (see e.g. substrate in paragraphs 10 and 42); and a multilayered antireflective coating built up from layers having different refractive indices (see e.g. high and low refractive indexes in paragraphs 10-11 and 17) and on at least one side of the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2), wherein layers having a relatively high refractive index and layers having a relatively low refractive index alternate (see e.g. alternating low refractive index layers and high refractive index layers in paragraph 10). Henn et al teaches that the component is selected from the group consisting of: a watch glass; an optical component; a head-up display; an eyepiece for augmented reality; a cooking surface; a display for smartwatches, tablet PCs, or mobile telephones; and a touch display for smartwatches, tablet PCs, or mobile telephones (see e.g. component used for a cooktop, viewing window in automotive sector, watch glasses, oven viewing windows, glass components in household appliances, displays for tablets, PCs, and cell phones in paragraph 57). Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
“Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). In this case, Henn et al does not specify the workable ranges for the proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight, but they do describe the general conditions of the claim, namely the preferred composition of silicon and/or doped silicon of 1 to 99 wt.% with 85 to 95 wt.% being preferred (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12), leaving room for another oxide such as zirconium oxide (see e.g. one or more oxides from a group containing zirconium in paragraph 12) in an amount as much as 0 to 5 wt.%. Additionally, Henn et al shows that the glass and coated layers have the same properties (see e.g. Table 1). It would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the invention taught by Henn et al.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henn et al (US-20150355382-A1) in view of Anderson et al (US-7005188-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Henn et al teaches a coated substrate (see e.g. coated substrate in abstract), comprising: a substrate (see e.g. substrate in paragraphs 10 and 42); and a multilayered antireflective coating built up from layers having different refractive indices (see e.g. high and low refractive indexes in paragraphs 10-11 and 17) and on at least one side of the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2), wherein layers having a relatively high refractive index and layers having a relatively low refractive index alternate (see e.g. alternating low refractive index layers and high refractive index layers in paragraph 10). Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Henn et al (US-20150355382-A1) Published 2015
Anderson et al discloses the addition of zirconium oxide as a doping metal to a refractive index layer (see e.g. chemically modifying the base of the low refractive index layer, such as adding one doping metal, Me. Where Me is a mix of an oxide and one metal of Ta, Zr, Sn, Zn, and Al in 4:59-60) wherein a proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component (see e.g. Me may or may not be semiconducting but is a metal in 4:63-66) in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight (see e.g. Me, the dopant metal is used in an atomic percentage of 0.1 to 20% and preferably 2 to 10% in 5:7-8). Even though Anderson et al uses atomic percentage it is still within the claimed range. If a weight of 100 g total is assumed in the instant application, then using equation
g
Z
r
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.03
and
g
S
i
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.97
you can solve for
g
Z
r
O
and
g
S
i
O
then substitute 100 g into
g
t
o
t
a
l
. This results in 3 g of zirconium oxide and 97 g of silicon dioxide. The grams can then be converted to moles via the molecular weights of zirconium oxide (being 123.22 g/mol) and silicon dioxide (being 60.083 g/mol). The resulting moles are 0.0243 moles for zirconium oxide and 1.614 moles for silicon dioxide. Using the provided equations of
Z
r
(
Z
r
+
S
i
)
×
100
(see paragraph 25 of instant application specification) the molar percents can be obtained. The percentage for a zirconium weight percent of 3 wt.% is equal to 1.48 mol.%. The same can be done for across the range of 0.2 wt.% through 10 wt.% where the mole percentages are 0.09 mol% and 5.14 mol%. To get to atomic percentage, all the moles will be converted to atoms via Avogadro’s number which is
6.022
×
10
23
.
Since it is a proportional change the percentages do not change much but result in a range of 0.098 % to 5.14 %. All of which fall within the range taught by Anderson et al of an atomic percentage of 2 to 10%.
Henn et al and Anderson et al are analogous in the art because both are transparent substrates with a coating of alternating layers of high and low refractive indices making an antireflective surface. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated substrate and composition taught by Henn et al by the amount of doping zirconium oxide taught in Anderson et al because it results in the desired final refractive index (see e.g. varied amount of Me results in desired final refractive index in 5:9-15 of Anderson et al) and makes the glass more durable with increased mechanical properties (i.e. scratch resistance) while retaining a low refractive index (see e.g. modifying layer via doping for example allows for increased stability and for attaining desired low index 4: 22-29 of Anderson et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
Anderson et al discloses the addition of zirconium oxide as a doping metal to a refractive index layer (see e.g. chemically modifying the base of the low refractive index layer, such as adding one doping metal, Me. Where Me is a mix of an oxide and one metal of Ta, Zr, Sn, Zn, and Al in 4:59-60) wherein a proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component (see e.g. Me may or may not be semiconducting but is a metal in 4:63-66) in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight (see e.g. Me, the dopant metal is used in an atomic percentage of 0.1 to 20% and preferably 2 to 10% in 5:7-8). Even though Anderson et al uses atomic percentage it is still within the claimed range. If a weight of 100 g total is assumed in the instant application, then using equation
g
Z
r
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.03
and
g
S
i
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.97
you can solve for
g
Z
r
O
and
g
S
i
O
then substitute 100 g into
g
t
o
t
a
l
. This results in 3 g of zirconium oxide and 97 g of silicon dioxide. The grams can then be converted to moles via the molecular weights of zirconium oxide (being 123.22 g/mol) and silicon dioxide (being 60.083 g/mol). The resulting moles are 0.0243 moles for zirconium oxide and 1.614 moles for silicon dioxide. Using the provided equations of
Z
r
(
Z
r
+
S
i
)
×
100
(see paragraph 25 of instant application specification) the molar percents can be obtained. The percentage for a zirconium weight percent of 3 wt.% is equal to 1.48 mol.%. The same can be done for across the range of 0.2 wt.% through 10 wt.% where the mole percentages are 0.09 mol% and 5.14 mol%. To get to atomic percentage, all the moles will be converted to atoms via Avogadro’s number which is
6.022
×
10
23
.
Since it is a proportional change the percentages do not change much but result in a range of 0.098 % to 5.14 %. All of which fall within the range taught by Anderson et al of an atomic percentage of 2 to 10%.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated substrate and composition taught by Henn et al by the amount of doping zirconium oxide taught in Anderson et al because it results in the desired final refractive index (see e.g. varied amount of Me results in desired final refractive index in 5:9-15 of Anderson et al) and makes the glass more durable with increased mechanical properties (i.e. scratch resistance) while retaining a low refractive index (see e.g. modifying layer via doping for example allows for increased stability and for attaining desired low index 4: 22-29 of Anderson et al).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Henn et al teaches at least one layer having a relatively low refractive index is an uppermost layer of the multilayered antireflective coating (see e.g. third low refractive index layer “8” is the uppermost layer in paragraph 9 and Figure 2, this ensures the anti-reflective effect in paragraph 48). Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium that may or may not all have the same composition (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12, where a plurality of low refractive index layers have the same composition or may have different compositions in paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 4, Henn et al teaches that the antireflective coating (see e.g. five layered coating in paragraph 9) comprises at least two layers having a relatively high refractive index and at least two layers having a relatively low refractive index (see e.g. where the coating is made of two low refractive index layers, first “4” and second “6” and two high refractive index layers first “5” and second “7” in paragraph 9 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Henn et al teaches the layers having a relatively low refractive index have a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm in a range from 1.3 to 1.6 (see e.g. at the wavelength of 550, the refractive index for the low refractive index range is 1.3 to 1.6 in paragraph 11) and/or the layers having a relatively high refractive index have a refractive index at a wavelength of 550 nm in a range from 1.8 to 2.3 (see e.g. at the wavelength of 550, the refractive index for the high refractive index range is 1.8 to 2.3 in paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Henn et al teaches the further layers having a relatively low refractive index contain SiO2 or doped SiO2 or Al-doped SiO2 (see e.g. low refractive index layers consist of SiO2 or doped SiO2, or an aluminum-doped SiO2 in paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 7, Henn et al teaches that the layers having a relatively high refractive index are an oxide, silicide, carbide or nitride or mixed forms thereof of one or more metallic and semiconducting components selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon, boron, zirconium, titanium, nickel, tin, hafnium, chromium, and doped variants thereof (see e.g. high refractive index layers may be made out of materials such as pure aluminum nitride or carbides, or silicon, or boron, or zirconium, titanium, nickel, chromium, and carbon in paragraph 35 and additionally can be made of boron nitride in addition to aluminum nitride or silicon nitride (AIN:SiN) in paragraphs 40-41).
Regarding claim 8, Henn et al teaches that at least one layer having a relatively high refractive index is a transparent hard material layer (see e.g. high refractive index layer or layers of coating provided in form of transparent hard material layers in paragraph 14) containing crystalline aluminum nitride having a hexagonal crystal structure with a predominating (001) preferred direction (see e.g. includes crystalline aluminum nitride (AIN) having a hexagonal crystal structure in the predominant (001) direction in paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 9, Henn et al teaches that the antireflective coating has a total layer thickness in a range from 200 nm to 400 nm (see e.g. the thickness of the combined coating would be between 190 nm to 1,260 nm in paragraph 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Henn et al does not teaches a particular shape for the substrate.
Anderson et al teaches that the substrate has a curved surface coated with the antireflective coating (see e.g. the coating can be disposed onto a glass substrate that has undergone heat treatment such as annealed toughened and/or curved in 8:3-11).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antireflective coated substrate taught in Henn et al to be curved as taught in Anderson because it would open the use of the component up to more applications (see e.g. curving in particular used for counter/display cabinets in shops and two curved substrates make it highly advantageous in motor vehicle glazing, mainly windscreens in 10:1-6 and 10:22-25).
Regarding claim 12, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is transparent (see e.g. the substrate may be a glass meant for watches and has a coating made of hard material layers that are transparent for visible and infrared light in paragraphs 16 and 42-43).
Regarding claim 13, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a glass, an optical glass, a crystal for optical purposes, a plastic for optical purposes, or a glass ceramic (see e.g. the substrate is a glass, such as optical glasses, crystals for optical uses, or glass ceramics that can be used for optical purposes and components in paragraphs 16 and 42).
Regarding claim 14, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a glass selected from the group consisting of sapphire glass (see e.g. glasses can be used as substrates, in particular sapphire glasses, with the present invention being particularly advantageous with sapphire glass in paragraphs 42-43).
Regarding claim 15, Henn et al teaches that the substrate is a chemically or thermally toughened glass (see e.g. embodiment where substrate is toughened glass, chemically or thermally tempered glass in paragraph 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the substrate taught in Henn et al with the chemically or thermally toughened glass taught in the embodiment of Henn et al because the tougher the substrate the more durable and the more uses it will have in application.
Regarding claim 17, Henn et al teaches a component (see e.g. optical component in paragraph 57), comprising: a coated substrate (see e.g. coated substrate in abstract), comprising: a substrate (see e.g. substrate in paragraphs 10 and 42); and a multilayered antireflective coating built up from layers having different refractive indices (see e.g. high and low refractive indexes in paragraphs 10-11 and 17) and on at least one side of the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2), wherein layers having a relatively high refractive index and layers having a relatively low refractive index alternate (see e.g. alternating low refractive index layers and high refractive index layers in paragraph 10). Additionally Henn et al teaches that the component is selected from the group consisting of: a watch glass; an optical component; a head-up display; an eyepiece for augmented reality; a cooking surface; a display for smartwatches, tablet PCs, or mobile telephones; and a touch display for smartwatches, tablet PCs, or mobile telephones (see e.g. component used for a cooktop, viewing window in automotive sector, watch glasses, oven viewing windows, glass components in household appliances, displays for tablets, PCs, and cell phones in paragraph 57).
Henn et al does not specifically teach its composition, but discloses that the low refractive index layers may be doped with one or more oxides taken from a group containing zirconium (see e.g. low refractive index layers doped SiO2 where SiO2 is doped with one or more oxides, nitrides, carbides, and/or carbonitrides that are selected from a group of aluminum, boron, zirconium, and more in paragraph 12). While Henn et al does not disclose the composition of zirconium oxide used, the aluminum-doped SiO2 has a weight percent of 85-95 wt%, leaving limited amounts of zirconium oxide that could possibly be added to the aluminum-doped SiO2 (see e.g. aluminum-doped SiO2 with silicon contents ranging from 1 to 99 wt.% and more preferably from 85 to 95 wt.% in paragraph 12).
Anderson et al discloses the addition of zirconium oxide as a doping metal to a refractive index layer (see e.g. chemically modifying the base of the low refractive index layer, such as adding one doping metal, Me. Where Me is a mix of an oxide and one metal of Ta, Zr, Sn, Zn, and Al in 4:59-60) wherein a proportion of zirconium in a metallic and semiconducting component (see e.g. Me may or may not be semiconducting but is a metal in 4:63-66) in the composition X is 0.2% to 10% by weight (see e.g. Me, the dopant metal is used in an atomic percentage of 0.1 to 20% and preferably 2 to 10% in 5:7-8). Even though Anderson et al uses atomic percentage it is still within the claimed range. If a weight of 100 g total is assumed in the instant application, then using equation
g
Z
r
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.03
and
g
S
i
O
g
T
o
t
a
l
=
0.97
you can solve for
g
Z
r
O
and
g
S
i
O
then substitute 100 g into
g
t
o
t
a
l
. This results in 3 g of zirconium oxide and 97 g of silicon dioxide. The grams can then be converted to moles via the molecular weights of zirconium oxide (being 123.22 g/mol) and silicon dioxide (being 60.083 g/mol). The resulting moles are 0.0243 moles for zirconium oxide and 1.614 moles for silicon dioxide. Using the provided equations of
Z
r
(
Z
r
+
S
i
)
×
100
(see paragraph 25 of instant application specification) the molar percents can be obtained. The percentage for a zirconium weight percent of 3 wt.% is equal to 1.48 mol.%. The same can be done for across the range of 0.2 wt.% through 10 wt.% where the mole percentages are 0.09 mol% and 5.14 mol%. To get to atomic percentage, all the moles will be converted to atoms via Avogadro’s number which is
6.022
×
10
23
.
Since it is a proportional change the percentages do not change much but result in a range of 0.098 % to 5.14 %. All of which fall within the range taught by Anderson et al of an atomic percentage of 2 to 10%.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated substrate and composition taught by Henn et al by the amount of doping zirconium oxide taught in Anderson et al because it results in the desired final refractive index (see e.g. varied amount of Me results in desired final refractive index in 5:9-15 of Anderson et al) and makes the glass more durable with increased mechanical properties (i.e. scratch resistance) while retaining a low refractive index (see e.g. modifying layer via doping for example allows for increased stability and for attaining desired low index 4: 22-29 of Anderson et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Additional References
Both Nakamura et al (US-6686049-B2) and Kawahara et al (US-20180265403-A1) show adding zirconium oxide to the low refractive layers was anticipated and known to strengthen and create a hard surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights