DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5-10, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Laible et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0093150 A1) (hereinafter “Laible”), as evidenced by Marthi et al. (Optical Properties of Black Silicon) (hereinafter “Marthi”);
OR in the alternative, claims 1-12 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Laible, as evidenced by Marthi, and optionally in view of Watkins et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0072720 A1) (hereinafter “Watkins”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-10, and 17-20, Laible teaches a nanotextured surface usable as a sensor or photonic device [0009, 0062] comprising a textured black silicon (b-Si) surface comprising a plurality of nanopillar features protruding therefrom in a homogeneous or non-homogeneous fashion (0108], having a tip with a sidewall at a tip angle in the range of 10°- 45° [0052] or forming the entire feature at a non-perpendicular pitch angle to the substrate [0103, Fig. 2B], wherein the pillar comprises a (nanoscale) porosity and may be doped (nanoparticles) [0052] and wherein the {porous} pillar surfaces can be coated with atomic layers (deposition) of metals and metal oxides [0054, 0163], wherein the b-Si material is primary formed through inductively coupled plasma reactive ion etching (ICP RIE) can also be fabricated via 3D printing or dynamic self-assembly (either inherently includes nanoparticles of silicon) [0169], wherein the shape of the nanopillars presents a graded transition of refractive index leading to a suppression of reflected incident light [0102], wherein the refractive index for the features is inherently between about 1.2 and about 2.5 (about 1.25 to about 2.4) over a wavelength of 0.25 µm to 2.5 µm (250 to 2500 nm) as evidenced by Marthi [pg. 3, Fig. 3].
In the event that features formed of nanoparticles and filling in of the nanopillar (nanoscale) porosity by the CVD/ALD material are not taught: Watkins teaches a method of forming a device having a textured/patterned nanostructure surface improved over specialized etching processes for a limited number of materials being a subtractive process that is expensive and wasteful [0003], wherein the patterned nanostructures are formed from a plurality of nanoparticles and may include silicon among many other types of nanoparticles [0082], wherein the concentration of nanoparticles and binder, type of nanoparticle, and porosity of the nanoparticle concentration affects the refractive index of the patterned nanostructure, which may be suitably tuned, such that the refractive index may range between about 1.0 and about 5.0, such as between 1.5 and 2.5 [0076], wherein the porosity may be further altered and filled in by further coating by any number of processes including atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide porous nanostructures comprising nanoparticles, wherein the porosity is further altered by ALD or CVD material (being a metal or metal oxide). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved and more cost-effective printing method of forming b-Si nanopillars having their porosity reduced by coating [Watkins].
Further regarding claims 2-4 and 11, Laible provides an exemplary aspect (height:width) ratio range of 15±1:1 [0105], but more broadly teaches the nanopillar length and diameter can be tuned in the range of 150 nm to 1.5 µm and of 50 nm to 490 nm [0014], respectively giving a broader aspect ratio range of 3:1 to 30:1. Furthermore, Watkins teaches features as having a high aspect ratio such as 2:1 to 10:1 and greater in a repeatable manner [0056, 0117].
Regarding claim 12, Watkins further teaches the other materials (in addition to or in replacement of silicon) for forming the nanoparticles can be any of the claimed materials, wherein exemplary embodiments comprise TiO2, cerium oxide (CeO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), and indium tin oxide (ITO) [0082, 0109-0139].
Further regarding claims 19-20, the features being heated as claimed is considered a product-by-process type limitation, wherein although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, Watkins teaches that the features are formed by UV-assisted nanoimprint lithography which confers a number of advantages such as low temperature fabrication, the ability to directly pattern structures having a feature width as narrow as the nanoparticle being patterned, the ability to product large areas in a scalable manner, among others [0051], wherein nanoparticle compositions are exposed to a temperature of less than about 200 °C to form the features or may be calcined to crystallize the entire composition, wherein calcining temperatures are no greater than 2000 °C, such as 650 °C for TiO2 [0066, 0048-0049, 0117].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to expose the features to a heating temperature within the range claimed or light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide light exposure to confer a number of advantages or to provide crystallization of the whole composition.
Claims 1, 5-9, 12, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pavlenko et al. (Enhancement of optical and mechanical properties of Si nanopillars by ALD TiO2 coating) as evidenced by Charrier et al. (Influence of experimental parameters on physical properties of porous silicon and oxidized porous silicon layers) (hereinafter “Charrier”);
OR in the alternative, claims 1, 5-9, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pavlenko, optionally in view of Watkins et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0072720 A1) (hereinafter “Watkins”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 12, & 17-20, Pavelenko teaches an article such as a sensor having a textured surface comprising porous silicon nanopillar arrays, both periodically and non-uniformly distributed [pg. 97071, Results and discussion, 1st paragraph] and wherein the sidewalls of at least one nanopillar are not perfectly perpendicular [Fig. 1], wherein the structural and optical qualities were improved by the introduction of TiO2 by atomic layer deposition (ALD), wherein the introduction of the ALD material strengthens the porous nanopillar [pg. 97074, right column, 2nd paragraph – pg. 97075] and reduces reflectance by modifying the refractive index [pg. 97074, left column – right column, 1st paragraph], wherein the TiO2 is annealed at 450 °C to provide anatase phase nanocrystalline particles both on and confined within the porous nanopillars [pg. 97074, right column, last paragraph], wherein since the refractive index of bulk anatase phase TiO2 is about 2.4-2.6 and the refractive index of porous silicon is about 1.3 to about 2.3 as evidenced by Charrier [pg. 8633, Fig. 2], wherein the refractive index of the composite nanopillar should inherently be between the two ranges and thus inherently within the claimed range.
In the event that features comprise nanoparticles and filling in of the nanopillar (nanoscale) porosity by the CVD/ALD material are not taught: Watkins teaches a method of forming a device having a textured/patterned nanostructure surface improved over specialized etching processes for a limited number of materials being a subtractive process that is expensive and wasteful [0003], wherein the patterned nanostructures are formed from a plurality of nanoparticles and may include silicon among many other types of nanoparticles [0082], wherein the concentration of nanoparticles and binder, type of nanoparticle, and porosity of the nanoparticle concentration affects the refractive index of the patterned nanostructure, which may be suitably tuned, such that the refractive index may range between about 1.0 and about 5.0, such as between 1.5 and 2.5 [0076], wherein the porosity may be further altered and filled in by further coating by any number of processes including atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition [0088], wherein the refractive index-based patterned structure provides an antireflection pattern [0097-0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide porous nanostructures comprising nanoparticles, wherein the porosity is further altered by ALD or CVD material (being a metal or metal oxide). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved and more cost-effective printing method of forming Si nanopillars having a porosity and providing refractive index tuning-based antireflection properties [Watkins].
Regarding claim 2, an example nanopillar dimensions comprise a 0.4 µm diameter and a 1.5 µm height [pg. 97071, Results and discussion, 2nd paragraph], giving a calculated aspect ratio of 3.75:1.
Further regarding claims 19-20, the features being heated as claimed is considered a product-by-process type limitation, wherein although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, Watkins teaches that the features are formed by UV-assisted nanoimprint lithography which confers a number of advantages such as low temperature fabrication, the ability to directly pattern structures having a feature width as narrow as the nanoparticle being patterned, the ability to product large areas in a scalable manner, among others [0051], wherein nanoparticle compositions are exposed to a temperature of less than about 200 °C to form the features or may be calcined to crystallize the entire composition, wherein calcining temperatures are no greater than 2000 °C, such as 650 °C for TiO2 [0066, 0048-0049, 0117].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to expose the features to a heating temperature within the range claimed or light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide light exposure to confer a number of advantages or to provide crystallization of the whole composition.
Claims 2-4 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pavlenko, optionally in view of Watkins, as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Niu et al. (Large-area, size-tunable Si nanopillar arrays with enhanced antireflective and plasmonic properties) (hereinafter “Niu”) OR Kiraly et al. (Multifunctional porous silicon nanopillar arrays: antireflection…) (hereinafter “Kiraly”).
Further regarding claims 2-4 and 11, while an exemplary aspect ratio for the nanopillar is given, a broader range is not taught.
Niu teaches size-tunable silicon nanopillar arrays intended to provide enhanced antireflective properties, wherein the height/length may be maintained in relation to the diameter (1777 nm vs. 216/212/147 nm, giving ARs of about 8.2:1/8.4:1/12:1) or the diameter may be maintained in relation to the height (216 nm vs. 162/1086/1864, giving ARs of about 0.75:1/5:1/8.6:1), wherein the height increasing or the diameter decreasing (i.e. higher aspect ratios) provide improved antireflective properties [pgs. 6-7], wherein the balance between ease of processing and desired aspect ratio would have been optimized within or near the claimed range.
OR
Kiraly teaches porous silicon nanopillars comprising aspect ratios of 2:1, 5:1, and 10:1, wherein processing conditions limits higher-aspect ratio nanopillars [pg. 5, right column], wherein antireflection properties are improved two-fold for the lowest aspect ratio and more than five-fold for the higher two aspect ratios, but may be further optimized [pg. 7, left column, 1st paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide silicon nanopillars having aspect ratios within the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased antireflection properties as already desired by Pavlenko (and Watkins).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pavlenko, optionally in view of Watkins, as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Ocier et al. (Tunable Visibly Transparent Optics Derived from Porous Silicon) (hereinafter “Ocier”) and Miyata et al. (Films Consisting of Innumerable Tapered Nanopillars of Mesoporous Silica for Universal Antireflection Coatings) (hereinafter “Miyata”), as evidenced by Charrier et al. (Influence of experimental parameters on physical properties of porous silicon and oxidized porous silicon layers) (hereinafter “Charrier”), wherein claim 11 is (even) further in view of Niu or Kiraly as recited above.
Regarding claims 10-16, a textured surface providing a gradient of refractive values is not taught, or the textured surface and/or substrate of the article as being optically transparent and/or comprising a (meta/flat) lens is not taught by Pavlenko or Pavlenko/Watkins and in the event that the nanoparticles are not taught as claimed.
Ocier teaches providing porous silicon can be a powerful platform for sensing and photonic elements, but for absorption intolerance applications such as lenses, it should be oxidizing to form porous silica (silicon dioxide/SiO2), wherein the ALD infiltration of TiO2 into the porous structure, which is then annealed, would have provided a tunable high refractive index structure that is optically transparent in the visible range, wherein the refractive index of bulk anatase phase TiO2 is about 2.4-2.6 and the refractive index of porous silicon dioxide is about 1.2 to about 1.45 as evidenced by Charrier [pg. 8633, Fig. 2].
Furthermore, Miyata teaches a patterned porous silica nanopillars filled by ALD with TiO2 to provide an antireflection property that can be universally tuned by the controlled incorporation of the TiO2, which is very useful for lenses [Abstract & Introduction] and due to the high aspect ratio and tapered shape (sidewall at an acute angle with the surface) of the nanopillar, a gradient of refractive index is formed that gradually changes from the air to the interface of the nanopillars/surface further increasing antireflection properties [pg. 1619] and the range of refractive index is assumed to be from about 1.2 (for unfilled porous silica) to about 1.8 (for fully TiO2 filled pores) [pg. 1621].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the nanoparticles as claimed to provide a (similar gradient of) refractive index range that would also allow for an optically transparent article/textured surface in the ranges claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance antireflection properties [Ocier & Miyata] while also providing known nanopillars to a broader range of applications that require optical transparency [Ocier].
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ahn et al. (KR 2012-119162 A) (hereinafter “Ahn”), as evidenced by Kothari et al. (Direct Patterning of Robust 1D, 2D, and 3D Crystalline Metal Oxide Nanostructures Using Imprint Lithograph and Nanoparticle Dispersion Inks) (hereinafter “Kothari”) and Kumar et al. (Optical properties of Al2O3 thin films grown by atomic layer deposition) (hereinafter “Kumar”);
OR in the alternative, claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ahn in view of Kothari.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 12-20, Ahn teaches article having structured/patterned surface having improved light extraction efficiency (increased light transmission) usable in a various optical fields as a filter (lens) or high-efficiency LED (display) [0002], wherein the periodically patterned surface is applied to a transparent substrate (flat lens), such as glass, quartz, or sapphire, as a patterned nanoparticle-based composition with precursors and solvent for fluidity, wherein the organic solvent is completely removed by an annealing process [0004-0007], providing a visible nanoscale porosity between at least some of the nanoparticles [Figs. 2A-2D], wherein Kothari evidences nanoimprint lithography formed porous nanostructures containing formed by a patterned composition comprising nanoparticles, binders which can include at least some sol-gel precursor(s), and solvent, wherein the removal of the solvent leads to the (nanoscale) porosity of the nanostructure [pg. 3912, right col.; Conclusion], wherein the patterned surface comprising the nanoparticle nanostructures is further conformally coated (inherently filling any voids/porosity) by a dielectric film using a finely controlled thickness deposition process such as atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0008-0009], wherein the addition of the conformal dielectric film of the same or different material to the nanoparticles, wherein nanoparticle and dielectric film independently comprise a metal oxide selected from SiO2, TiO2, ZnO, Al2O3, Ta2O5, HfO2, and ZrO2 [0039, 0051-0052] having a relatively higher refractive index than the transparent substrate provides additional robustness/support, additional surface smoothening, and significantly enhanced light extraction efficiency (i.e. increased optical transparency/light-transmission/reduced reflectance) [0057], [0008, 0012-0013, 0030, 0057], wherein an example comprises a quartz substrate surface comprising TiO2 nanoparticle nanostructures each coated by ALD with Al2O3 [0053], wherein Kothari further evidences dense crystalline TiO2 in the anatase phase has a refractive index of about 2.49 and the nanoparticle sol composition provides a refractive index of about 1.9 to about 2.75 [pg. 3914] and Kumar evidences that ALD Al2O3 comprises a refractive index of about 1.64-1.67, wherein the composite nanostructure should inherently have a refractive index within the claimed range(s) or it would have been obvious in view of Kothari to do so.
Further regarding claim 2, Kothari further teaches that low aspect ratio patterns can be formed but that high aspect ratio patterns further improve surface area and increase device efficiency (light extraction efficiency) [pg. 3910, right col.], wherein a high aspect ratio pattern comprises a height of 380 nm and a width of 130 nm (AR≈2.9) before calcination and forming anatase-phase TiO2, which then comprises a height of 365 nm and a width of 130 nm (AR≈2.8). Ahn further teaches a pattern comprising a width/diameter of 230 nm that is expanded to 270 nm following the addition of the 20 nm ALD deposition [0038]. Wherein the same coating thickness were applied to the high aspect ratio pattern of Kothari, the modified aspect ratios are 2.35 and 2.26, respectively.
Further regarding claims 19-20, the features being heated as claimed is considered a product-by-process type limitation, wherein although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, Ahn teaches that the annealing/heating temperature may be in the range of 100 to 200 °C [0025], which is prima facie overlapping with the claimed range. However, Ahn does not explicitly teach a temperature higher than 200 °C or light exposure
Watkins teaches that the features are formed by UV-assisted nanoimprint lithography which confers a number of advantages such as low temperature fabrication, the ability to directly pattern structures having a feature width as narrow as the nanoparticle being patterned, the ability to product large areas in a scalable manner, among others [0051], wherein nanoparticle compositions are exposed to a temperature of less than about 200 °C to form the features or may be calcined to crystallize the entire composition, wherein calcining temperatures are no greater than 2000 °C, such as 650 °C for TiO2 [0066, 0048-0049, 0117].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to expose the features to a heating temperature within the range claimed or light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide light exposure to confer a number of advantages or to provide crystallization of the whole composition.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ahn et al. (KR 2012-119162 A) (hereinafter “Ahn”) in view of Watkins et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0072720 A1) (hereinafter “Watkins”) and Miyata et al. (Films Consisting of Innumerable Tapered Nanopillars of Mesoporous Silica for Universal Antireflection Coatings) (hereinafter “Miyata”);
wherein claims 2-4 & 11 are optionally further in view of Kothari et al. (Direct Patterning of Robust 1D, 2D, and 3D Crystalline Metal Oxide Nanostructures Using Imprint Lithograph and Nanoparticle Dispersion Inks) (hereinafter “Kothari”) AND Niu et al. (Large-area, size-tunable Si nanopillar arrays with enhanced antireflective and plasmonic properties) (hereinafter “Niu”) OR Kiraly et al. (Multifunctional porous silicon nanopillar arrays: antireflection…) (hereinafter “Kiraly”);
wherein claims 6-7 & 10 are optionally further in view of Tsakalakos et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0012086 A1) (hereinafter “Tsakalakos”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 12-20, Ahn teaches article having structured/patterned surface having improved light extraction efficiency (increased light transmission) usable in a various optical fields as a filter (lens) or high-efficiency LED (display) [0002], wherein the periodically patterned surface is applied to a transparent substrate (flat lens), such as glass, quartz, or sapphire, as a patterned nanoparticle-based composition with precursors and solvent for fluidity, wherein the organic solvent is completely removed by an annealing process [0004-0007], providing a visible nanoscale porosity between at least some of the nanoparticles [Figs. 2A-2D], wherein the patterned surface comprising the nanoparticle nanostructures is further conformally coated (inherently filling any voids/porosity) by a dielectric film using a finely controlled thickness deposition process such as atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0008-0009], wherein the addition of the conformal dielectric film of the same or different material to the nanoparticles, wherein nanoparticle and dielectric film independently comprise a metal oxide selected from SiO2, TiO2, ZnO, Al2O3, Ta2O5, HfO2, and ZrO2 [0039, 0051-0052] having a relatively higher refractive index than the transparent substrate provides additional robustness/support, additional surface smoothening, and significantly enhanced light extraction efficiency (i.e. increased optical transparency/light-transmission/reduced reflectance) [0057], [0008, 0012-0013, 0030, 0057].
However, the ALD/CVD material explicitly filling a porosity such that a refractive index is within the claimed range is not taught.
Watkins teaches a method of forming a device having a textured/patterned nanostructure surface improved over specialized etching processes for a limited number of materials being a subtractive process that is expensive and wasteful [0003], wherein the patterned nanostructures are formed from a plurality of nanoparticles included many if not all of the claimed materials [0082], wherein the concentration of nanoparticles and binder, type of nanoparticle, and porosity of the nanoparticle concentration affects the refractive index of the patterned nanostructure, which may be suitably tuned, such that the refractive index may range between about 1.0 and about 5.0, such as between 1.5 and 2.5 [0076], wherein the porosity may be further altered and filled in by further coating by any number of processes including atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition [0088], wherein the features may exhibit a high aspect ratio, such as 2:1 to 10:1 or higher, in a repeatable manner [0056, 0117], wherein the refractive index-based patterned structure provides an antireflection pattern [0097-0098]
Miyata teaches a patterned porous silica nanopillars filled by ALD with TiO2 to provide an antireflection property that can be universally tuned by the controlled incorporation of the TiO2, which is very useful for lenses [Abstract & Introduction] and due to the high aspect ratio and tapered shape (sidewall at an acute angle with the surface) of the nanopillar, a gradient of refractive index is formed that gradually changes from the air to the interface of the nanopillars/surface further increasing antireflection properties [pg. 1619] and the range of refractive index is from about 1.2 (for unfilled porous silica) to about 1.8 (for fully TiO2 filled pores) [pg. 1621].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the nanofeatures of Ahn with a fillable nanoscale porosity (if not already inherent) and filling the porosity with the ALD/CVD high refractive index material of Ahn, such that the refractive index can be tuned. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the same (or similar) materials of Ahn with either slight to no modification of the process of Ahn to provide tunable refractive index infiltrated porous nanofeatures having all of the same benefits of Ahn.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 11, while an overlapping aspect ratio is provided by Watkins, in the event that the aspect ratio range is not properly motivated: Kothari further teaches that low aspect ratio patterns can be formed but that high aspect ratio patterns further improve surface area and increase device efficiency (light extraction efficiency) [pg. 3910, right col.], wherein a high aspect ratio pattern comprises a height of 380 nm and a width of 130 nm (AR≈2.9) before calcination and forming anatase-phase TiO2, which then comprises a height of 365 nm and a width of 130 nm (AR≈2.8).
Niu teaches size-tunable silicon nanopillar arrays intended to provide enhanced antireflective properties, wherein the height/length may be maintained in relation to the diameter (1777 nm vs. 216/212/147 nm, giving ARs of about 8.2:1/8.4:1/12:1) or the diameter may be maintained in relation to the height (216 nm vs. 162/1086/1864, giving ARs of about 0.75:1/5:1/8.6:1), wherein the height increasing or the diameter decreasing (i.e. higher aspect ratios) provide improved antireflective properties [pgs. 6-7], wherein the balance between ease of processing and desired aspect ratio would have been optimized within or near the claimed range.
OR
Kiraly teaches porous silicon nanopillars comprising aspect ratios of 2:1, 5:1, and 10:1, wherein processing conditions limits higher-aspect ratio nanopillars [pg. 5, right column], wherein antireflection properties are improved two-fold for the lowest aspect ratio and more than five-fold for the higher two aspect ratios, but may be further optimized [pg. 7, left column, 1st paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the features as having an aspect ratio within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased light extraction/antireflection properties as already desired by Ahn (and Watkins).
Regarding claims 6-7, although a random arrangement of the nanofeatures is not taught or the features having a side that forms an acute angle with the surface. This is either a change in shape or rearrangement of parts, wherein it has been held that shape configuration of the claimed invention is a matter of choice in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant or it has been held that shifting position is unpatentable if it does not modify the operation of the device and/or particular placement is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. OR VI. C.
Alternatively, Tsakalakos teaches a nanostructured surface comprising a plurality of nanofeatures usable in a light emitting diode or a display, photodetector, or camera [0065], wherein the plurality of nanofeatures provide antireflection properties, wherein the nanostructured surface may have a uniform or gradient refractive index, wherein the gradient is provided compositionally or structurally, wherein a structural gradient is provided by a graded cross-sectional area or the nanostructure as tilted at one or more angles, either method providing the nanofeature with a side at an angle with respect to the substrate within the claimed range [0034, 0036-0038, 0041], wherein the nanostructures may be substantially perpendicular or tilted at an angle to the substrate (acute) and may be arranged periodically or in a random fashion [0022, 0029, 0060], wherein the operation of the device is not stated to change upon the change in shape/rearrangement of the distribution of nanofeatures.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the nanostructured surface of Ahn/Watkins with a gradient refractive index. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to gradually change from the air to the interface of the nanopillars/surface further increasing antireflection properties [Miyata; pg. 1619 & Tsakalakos; 0040].
Further regarding claims 19-20, the features being heated as claimed is considered a product-by-process type limitation, wherein although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, Ahn teaches that the annealing/heating temperature may be in the range of 100 to 200 °C [0025], which is prima facie overlapping with the claimed range. However, Ahn does not explicitly teach a temperature higher than 200 °C or light exposure
Watkins teaches that the features are formed by UV-assisted nanoimprint lithography which confers a number of advantages such as low temperature fabrication, the ability to directly pattern structures having a feature width as narrow as the nanoparticle being patterned, the ability to product large areas in a scalable manner, among others [0051], wherein nanoparticle compositions are exposed to a temperature of less than about 200 °C to form the features or may be calcined to crystallize the entire composition, wherein calcining temperatures are no greater than 2000 °C, such as 650 °C for TiO2 [0066, 0048-0049, 0117].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to expose the features to a heating temperature within the range claimed or light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide light exposure to confer a number of advantages or to provide crystallization of the whole composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 16th, 2026
Prosecution Insights