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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/849840 filed on September 23, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted September 23, 2024 are under examination. Claims 1-13, 18-19, 22, 31-33 and 41 are pending. Claims 14-17, 20-21, 23-30 and 34-40 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on September 23, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 11/6/2024 and 7/3/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3: “thet least four heights” is a typographical error for “the at
Further with respect to claim 13, the limitation “wherein the discrete distribution of heights comprises three or more heights” is broader than the immediately following limitation “wherein the discrete distribution of heights comprises at least four heights”. Thus the first recitation is unnecessary and should be deleted. No indefiniteness issue is raised because the requirement for at least four heights is clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 18-19, 22, 31 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hart et al. US 2022/0011468 A1 (hereafter Hart).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, although reference, Hart, could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 1, Hart teaches (Figs. 1A, 1C, 11A, 13A) “A display article (display article 100) comprising:
a first major surface (primary surface 12 on the top side of 100 in Fig. 1A);
a second major surface (primary surface 14 on the bottom side of 100 in Fig. 1A) opposing the first major surface (see Fig. 1A); and
a diffractive surface region (diffractive surface region 30a) formed in the first major surface (e.g. Fig. 1A and paragraph [0059]: “the primary surface 12 has a diffractive surface region 30a defined thereon”), wherein, within the diffractive surface region, the first major surface comprises a plurality of regions (Fig. 1A, first planar region 21a and second planar region 21b. Further, let a region-type be defined by the height of the structural features therein where paragraph [0064] discloses a multimodal distribution of surface heights.) disposed at a discrete distribution of heights (e.g. paragraph [0064]: “a plurality of structural features 20 of different heights in a multimodal distribution. This multimodal distribution can have a plurality of surface height modes, e.g., the distribution may be bimodal (e.g., with a first portion of structural features 22a, 22a′ and a second portion of structural features 22b, 22b′), tri-modal, four-modal, five-modal, etc. In embodiments, the diffractive surface region 30a is configured such that each of these modes is characterized by a distinct peak of surface height”) measured relative to an imaginary base plane extending through the display article and parallel to the first major surface (This is an arbitrary plane, but for the purpose of explanation, let the imaginary base plane be at the dash-dotted line in Fig. 1A parallel to the lower extend of double arrow 24a, which is within the display article and parallel to primary surface 12.), wherein:
the plurality of regions are arranged such that a specular reflectance of light incident on the first major surface within a wavelength range of interest greater than or equal to a minimum wavelength λmin and less than or equal to a maximum wavelength λmax (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100. As such, it is believed that the display article 100, as configured according to FIG. 1C, can, according to some embodiments, exhibit a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.1%, less than 0.08%, less than 0.06%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.04%, or even less than 0.025%, as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10) at angles of incidence on the first major surface ranging from a minimum angle of incidence θmin to a maximum angle of incidence θmax (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100. As such, it is believed that the display article 100, as configured according to FIG. 1C, can, according to some embodiments, exhibit a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.1%, less than 0.08%, less than 0.06%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.04%, or even less than 0.025%, as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10.) is reduced by at least a factor of 10 as compared to an untextured version of the first major surface not including the diffractive surface region (paragraph [0058]: “the display articles of the disclosure can suppress specular reflectance by a factor of 10× or more”; paragraph [0072]: “Referring again to the display article 100 depicted in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the article can also be configured for optimal antiglare performance”; paragraph [0076]: “That is, the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100… measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” and paragraph [0118]: “a single structure depth near the first ¼ wavelength minimum (at the arrow) can successfully achieve a 10× reduction in specular reflectance for all visible light wavelengths from 450 to 650 nm.”), and differences between heights in the discrete distribution of heights are within 5% of integer multiples of
λ
-
/
4
(paragraph [0065]: “the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Note that the claim requires the difference between the distribution of heights to be within 5% of integer multiples of
λ
-
/
4
, not that the actual heights achieved within the multimodal distribution have to be within 5% of the target height. However, Hart also teaches (paragraph [0066]: “Further, each of these planar regions 21a and 21b can be characterized by a surface height variation (or roughness) within the planar region of… less than 1 nm RMS.” and thus a variation in height differences within a region of less than 5%.), where
λ
-
=
λ
'
m
i
n
-
1
+
λ
'
m
a
x
-
1
2
-
1
, (paragraph [0065]: “For example, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b can be about 25 nm, 50 nm, 75 nm, 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, 250 nm, 275 nm, 300 nm, and all height differences between the foregoing levels. In some embodiments, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Given λ′min=451.72 and λ′max=691.72 calculated below,
λ
-
=
451.72
-
1
+
691.72
-
1
2
-
1
=
0.00221376
+
0.00144568
2
-
1
=
546.53
such that
λ
-
/
4
=136.63 nm which is between 125 nm and 150 nm. Alternatively, for a height difference of 150 nm,
λ
-
=600 nm, values of λ′min= 530.77 and λ′max=690 have a harmonic mean of 600 nm)
λ′min=λmin/cos θmin, (given the values above: 450nm/cos(5°)=451.72 nm or let λ′min=530.77 which could correspond to values such as λmin= 525.6 nm and θmin =8°) and λ′max=λmax/cos θmax (given the values above: 650nm/cos(20°)=691.72 nm or let λ′max=690 which could correspond to values such as λmax= 648.4 nm and θmax =20°).”
Note that, although Hart does not explicitly disclose the reduction factor of specular reflection over a specific wavelength range for each height difference of paragraph [0065], given that the additional antireflection layer leads to a reduction by a factor of 100 (see paragraph [0076]) it is self-evident that when any of the choices of paragraph [0065] have an addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve a factor of 10 or more reduction in specular reflection discussed in paragraph [0076].
Regarding claim 2, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein the diffractive surface region scatters the light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 1.5 over the wavelength range of interest (See Fig. 11B the peak scattering angle is still at 0° for sample 950, see paragraph [0132]: Referring now to FIG. 11A, an optical image and surface height distribution bar of the diffractive surface region of the sample with best combination of optical properties from Table 2 (Sample 950) is provided. More specifically, the structural features of this sample (Sample 950) have a depth of about 150 nm, a fill fraction of 50%, a 12 μm feature diameter/size and a minimum pitch of 14 μm. Referring now to FIG. 11B, an angular spectra plot is provided of the samples from Table 2 in this example.” Note that 150 nm was one of the examples provided in claim 1 that meet the functional limitations on the parameters. Although the reduction in specular reflectance for sample 950 is only 6%, with the addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve a factor of 10 or more reduction in specular reflection discussed in paragraph [0076]).”
Regarding claim 3, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 2, wherein the peak scattering angle is less than or equal to 0.50 over at least a portion of the wavelength range of interest (See Fig. 11B the peak scattering angle is still at 0° for sample 950, see paragraph [0132]: Referring now to FIG. 11A, an optical image and surface height distribution bar of the diffractive surface region of the sample with best combination of optical properties from Table 2 (Sample 950) is provided. More specifically, the structural features of this sample (Sample 950) have a depth of about 150 nm, a fill fraction of 50%, a 12 μm feature diameter/size and a minimum pitch of 14 μm. Referring now to FIG. 11B, an angular spectra plot is provided of the samples from Table 2 in this example.” Note that 150 nm was one of the examples provided in claim 1 that meet the functional limitations on the parameters. Although the reduction in specular reflectance for sample 950 is only 6%, with the addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve a factor of 10 or more reduction in specular reflection discussed in paragraph [0076]. Also note that a single wavelength is still “at least a portion of the wavelength range of interest”.).”
Regarding claim 5, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein: λmin is greater than or equal to 380 nm (see claim 1 above which provided the examples of λmin = 450 nm or λmin= 525.6 nm) and λmax is less than or equal to 1200 nm (see claim 1 above which provided the examples of λmax= 650 nm or λmax= 648.4 nm), and θmin is greater than or equal to 0° (see claim 1 above which provided the examples of θmin =5° or θmin =8°) and θmax is less than or equal to 75° (see claim 1 above which provided the examples of θmax =20° or θmin =20°).”
Regarding claim 8, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions have a minimum feature size that is greater than or equal to 1 μm (in all examples that the examiner could identify where Hart discusses the lateral feature size it is greater than or equal to 1 μm. See paragraph [0084]: “the majority of the structural features 20 of the roughened surface region 30b have lateral etched feature dimensions (i.e., X-Y dimensions) that range from 1 μm to 125 μm, 1 μm to 100 μm, 1 μm to 75 μm, 1 μm to 50 μm, 1 μm to 40 μm, 1 μm to 30 μm, 5 μm to 125 μm, 5 μm to 100 μm, 5 μm to 75 μm, 5 μm to 60 μm, 5 μm to 50 μm, 5 μm to 40 μm, 5 μm to 30 μm, 10 μm to 60 μm, 10 μm to 100 μm, and lateral dimensions within the foregoing ranges”; paragraph [0131]: “In some implementations, the aspect ratio of the structural features 20 of the diffractive surface region 30a is more than 10, more than 20, more than 50, or more than 100. For example, a first portion of structural features 22a, 22a′ with an average diameter 32a of 20 μm and an average height 24a of 0.2 μm corresponds to an aspect ratio of 100.” for a height of 0.15 μm an aspect ratio of 10 would be a diameter of 1.5 μm which is within the claimed range; paragraph [0135]: “the actual size of the screen-printed features (i.e., the mask) ranged from 101 to 110 μm for the specific features depicted in FIG. 13A”; paragraph [0137]: “structural features having 12 μm and 50 μm diameters”; paragraphs [0141],[0145],[0151]: “a majority of lateral etched features dimensions in the range of 5 μm to 30 μm” ).”
Regarding claim 9, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions are arranged in a pattern that is periodic in two directions that are perpendicular to one another (See Fig. 13A and paragraph [0135]. That the structures are generally periodic in perpendicular horizontal and vertical directions as displayed in Fig. 13A is self-evident. In paragraph [0135] it is disclosed that the etch depth is 0.172 μm. A value of 0.172 μm is one quarter of 688 nm. Since 450nm/cos(5°)=451.72 nm and 650/cos(20°)=691.7 nm are respectively smaller and larger than 688 nm, there exist sets of λmin , θmin , λmax and θmax within the range of 450-650nm and 5-20° for which 688 nm is a harmonic mean thereof, and thus satisfying the functions of claim 1.).”
Regarding claim 10, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 9, wherein the pattern comprises at least one surrounded region that is completely surrounded by regions having different heights relative to the imaginary base plane than the surrounded region (see Fig. 13, one region is the cylindrical posts, and another region is the areas that completely surround each cylindrical post. That Fig. 13 also meets claim 1 was explained above for claim 9).”
Regarding claim 12, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein the regions of the plurality of regions at each height of the discrete distribution of heights occupy a combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region that is predetermined to minimize the specular reflectance (see Fig. 3A, 4A, 4B and 4C as discussed in paragraphs [0115]-[0117]. In particular optical modeling calculations were performed to suppress specular reflected light, achieving being “suppressed by a factor of 10 compared to flat glass over a structure depth range of about 0.12 to 0.17 μm… the preferred fill fraction for simple bimodal height, single material structure such as this one is close to 50%, or in the range of 35% to 65%, as modeled and depicted in FIG. 2.”).”
Regarding claim 18, Hart teaches (Figs. 1A, 1C, 2, 11A, 13A) “A glass display article (display article 100 and paragraph [0096]: “Referring again to FIGS. 1A-1E, the substrate 10 of the display article 100 can be configured with a multi-component glass composition”) comprising:
a first major surface (primary surface 12 on the top side of 100 in Fig. 1A);
a second major surface (primary surface 14 on the bottom side of 100 in Fig. 1A) opposing the first major surface (see Fig. 1A); and
a diffractive surface region (diffractive surface region 30a) formed in the first major surface (e.g. Fig. 1A and paragraph [0059]: “the primary surface 12 has a diffractive surface region 30a defined thereon”), wherein, within the diffractive surface region, the first major surface comprises:
a first plurality of regions (Fig. 1A, first planar region 21a, which is a plurality of regions with structures of the first height, see also paragraph [0064] which discloses a multimodal distribution of surface heights. In Fig. 2 let the first plurality of regions be where the structures occur.) comprising a first plurality of heights (first average height 24a) that are within 5% of an average of the first plurality of heights (paragraph [0066]: “Further, each of these planar regions 21a and 21b can be characterized by a surface height variation (or roughness) within the planar region of… less than 1 nm RMS.” Taken together with hmax - hmin of, for example, 136.63 nm, 150 nm or 172 nm, see below, hmax is greater than 136.63 nm and thus a variation of 1 nm is less than 0.7% of the average height) at a maximum height hmax (It is a mathematical truism that hmax = (hmax - hmin) + hmin. Values of (hmax - hmin) are given such as paragraph [0065] the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b can be about … 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm… and all height differences between the foregoing levels” which includes 136.63 nm calculated below and an exemplary 150 nm, as well as paragraphs [0133]-[0135] 0.172 μm which is 172 nm. Thus hmax is equal to these differences plus the arbitrarily chosen value of hmin relative to the imaginary base plane.) measured from an imaginary base plane extending through the display article and parallel to the first major surface (This is an arbitrary plane, but for the purpose of explanation, let the imaginary base plane be, for example, 100 nm below the dash-dotted line in Fig. 1A which is within the display article and parallel to primary surface 12. See paragraph [0105] which discloses that the compressive stress layer under the primary surface extends to a depth of at least 15 μm below the primary surface 12. Thus the glass substrate is well over 1,500 nm thick.), the first plurality of regions occupying a first combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region (paragraph [0117]: “the preferred fill fraction for simple bimodal height, single material structure such as this one is close to 50%, or in the range of 35% to 65%, as modeled and depicted in FIG. 2” or paragraph [0133]: “actual fill fraction was closer to 56%”); and
a second plurality of regions (second planar region 21b, which is a plurality of regions with structures of the second height, see also paragraph [0064] which discloses a multimodal distribution of surface heights. In Fig. 2 let the second plurality of regions be where the structures do not occur.) comprising a second plurality of heights (second average height 24b) that are within 5% of an average of the second plurality of heights at a minimum height hmin measured from the imaginary base plane (The imaginary base plane can be arbitrarily chosen as noted above to take a value such as 100 nm below the bottom depth of regions 21b, and will define the second height 24b, in this instance to be 100 nm. Taken together with paragraph [0066]: “Further, each of these planar regions 21a and 21b can be characterized by a surface height variation (or roughness) within the planar region of… less than 1 nm RMS.”, the surface height variation is less than 1%.), the second plurality of regions occupying a second combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region (In embodiments like Fig. 2, the second regions occupy the remainder of the first primary surface 12, and thus have a second combined surface area of one minus the first combined surface areas above), wherein:
the first plurality of regions and the second plurality of regions are arranged in a predetermined pattern (e.g. paragraph [0061]: “the diffractive surface region 30a can comprise a two-dimensional array of circular, square, hexagonal, polygonal, or irregular structural features 20. Further, these structural features 20 can be arranged in an ordered or a semi-ordered array—essentially, any of various array schemes that are reproducibly fabricated and do not depend on manufacturing process randomness for their function.”) based on a predicted specular reflectance of light incident on the first major surface (e.g. paragraph [0114]: “For example, the structural features 20 can be configured with a relatively large period 47 on the order of about 100 μm (e.g., from about 70 to 200 μm) for end use applications of the display article 100 that benefit from maximizing a scattered light component near 0.3°, such as in the case where the application has a particular DOI target. Such DOI targets may require a scattered light component at or near 0.3° from the specular reflection direction, which can be enhanced by relatively large structural features 20. For end use applications for the display article 100 in which the DOI requirements are not as strict, smaller structural features 20 may be desirable, e.g., with a period 47 that ranges from about 5 to 30 μm and, according to some implementations, is semi-randomized to minimize color and/or Moiré artifacts.”) within a wavelength range of interest greater than or equal to a minimum wavelength λmin and less than or equal to a maximum wavelength λmax (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100. As such, it is believed that the display article 100, as configured according to FIG. 1C, can, according to some embodiments, exhibit a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.1%, less than 0.08%, less than 0.06%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.04%, or even less than 0.025%, as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10) at angles of incidence on the first major surface ranging from a minimum angle of incidence θmin to a maximum angle of incidence θmax (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100. As such, it is believed that the display article 100, as configured according to FIG. 1C, can, according to some embodiments, exhibit a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.1%, less than 0.08%, less than 0.06%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.04%, or even less than 0.025%, as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10.),
hmax−hmin is within 5% of an integer multiple of
λ
-
/
4
(paragraph [0065]: “the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Note that the claim requires the difference between the distribution of heights to be within 5% of integer multiples of
λ
-
/
4
, not that the actual heights achieved within the multimodal distribution have to be within 5% of the target height. However, Hart also teaches (paragraph [0066]: “Further, each of these planar regions 21a and 21b can be characterized by a surface height variation (or roughness) within the planar region of… less than 1 nm RMS.” and thus a variation in height differences within a region of less than 5%.), where
λ
-
=
λ
'
m
i
n
-
1
+
λ
'
m
a
x
-
1
2
-
1
, (paragraph [0065]: “For example, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b can be about 25 nm, 50 nm, 75 nm, 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, 250 nm, 275 nm, 300 nm, and all height differences between the foregoing levels. In some embodiments, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Given λ′min=451.72 and λ′max=691.72 calculated below,
λ
-
=
451.72
-
1
+
691.72
-
1
2
-
1
=
0.00221376
+
0.00144568
2
-
1
=
546.53
such that
λ
-
/
4
=136.63 nm which is between 125 nm and 150 nm. Alternatively, for a height difference of 150 nm,
λ
-
=600 nm, values of λ′min= 530.77 and λ′max=690 have a harmonic mean of 600 nm)
λ′min=λmin/cos θmin, (given the values above: 450nm/cos(5°)=451.72 nm or let λ′min=530.77 which could correspond to values such as λmin= 525.6 nm and θmin =8°) and λ′max=λmax/cos θmax (given the values above: 650nm/cos(20°)=691.72 nm or let λ′max=690 which could correspond to values such as λmax= 648.4 nm and θmax =20°),
and an average measured specular reflectance of the first major surface is less than or equal to 2.5% over the wavelength range of interest within the angles of incidence (paragraph [0074]: “a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 2%, less than 1.5%, less than 1%, less than 0.8%, less than 0.6%, less than 0.5%, less than 0.4%, or even less than 0.25%, as measured at an incident angle of 20° from normal, at wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” and paragraph [0076]: “exhibit a first-surface absolute specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.1%, less than 0.08%, less than 0.06%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.04%, or even less than 0.025%, as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” see also paragraph [0087]).”
Note that, although Hart does not explicitly disclose the measured specular reflection over a specific wavelength range for each height difference of paragraph [0065], given that the additional antireflection layer leads to a reduction by a factor of 100 (see paragraph [0076]) it is self-evident that when any of the choices of paragraph [0065] have an addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve the claimed measured specular reflection as discussed in paragraph [0076].
Regarding claim 19, Hart teaches “The glass display article of claim 18, wherein diffractive surface region scatters the light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 1.5° over the wavelength range of interest (See Fig. 11B the peak scattering angle is still at 0° for sample 950, see paragraph [0132]: Referring now to FIG. 11A, an optical image and surface height distribution bar of the diffractive surface region of the sample with best combination of optical properties from Table 2 (Sample 950) is provided. More specifically, the structural features of this sample (Sample 950) have a depth of about 150 nm, a fill fraction of 50%, a 12 μm feature diameter/size and a minimum pitch of 14 μm. Referring now to FIG. 11B, an angular spectra plot is provided of the samples from Table 2 in this example.” Note that 150 nm was one of the examples provided in claim 1 that meet the functional limitations on the parameters. Although the reduction in specular reflectance for sample 950 is only 6%, with the addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve a factor of 10 or more reduction in specular reflection discussed in paragraph [0076]).”
Regarding claim 22, Hart teaches “The glass display article of claim 18, wherein: λmin is greater than or equal to 380 nm (see claim 18 above which provided the examples of λmin = 450 nm or λmin= 525.6 nm) and λmax is less than or equal to 1200 nm (see claim 18 above which provided the examples of λmax= 650 nm or λmax= 648.4 nm), and θmin is greater than or equal to 0° ° (see claim 18 above which provided the examples of θmin =5° or θmin =8°) and θmax is less than or equal to 75° (see claim 1 above which provided the examples of θmax =20° or θmin =20°).”
Regarding claim 31, Hart teaches “A method (see steps below) of forming a diffractive surface region (diffractive surface region 30a),of a substrate (substrate 10) for a display article (display article 100), the method comprising:
determining a pattern (see Fig. 3A, 4A, 4B and 4C as discussed in paragraphs [0114]-[0117]. Paragraph [0114] discusses a variety of ways that the structural features can be arranged depending on the particular application. Paragraph [0115] discusses the optical modeling calculations being performed and paragraph [0116] discloses achieving “the amplitude of the specular reflectance… is suppressed by a factor of 10 compared to flat glass over a structure depth range of about 0.12 to 0.17 μm… the preferred fill fraction for simple bimodal height, single material structure such as this one is close to 50%, or in the range of 35% to 65%, as modeled and depicted in FIG. 2.” See also paragraph [0061]: “these structural features 20 can be arranged in an ordered or a semi-ordered array—essentially, any of various array schemes that are reproducibly fabricated and do not depend on manufacturing process randomness for their function.”) for a plurality of regions (Fig. 1A, first planar region 21a and second planar region 21b. Further, let a region-type be defined by the height of the structural features therein where paragraph [0064] discloses a multimodal distribution of surface heights.) on a first major surface of the substrate (primary surface 12 on the top side of 100 in Fig. 1A), wherein each region of the plurality of regions comprises a surface area (the upper surface area of each structure or valley within a contiguous region, such as the circles and surrounding areas in Fig. 13A) disposed at a height (heights 24a and 24b measured relative to the imaginary base plane described immediately hereafter) measured relative to an imaginary base plane extending through the display article and parallel to the first major surface (This is an arbitrary plane, but for the purpose of explanation, let the imaginary base plane be at the dash-dotted line in Fig. 1A parallel to the lower extend of double arrow 24a, which is within the display article and parallel to primary surface 12.), wherein the plurality of regions comprises a discrete distribution of heights (e.g. paragraph [0064]: “a plurality of structural features 20 of different heights in a multimodal distribution. This multimodal distribution can have a plurality of surface height modes, e.g., the distribution may be bimodal (e.g., with a first portion of structural features 22a, 22a′ and a second portion of structural features 22b, 22b′), tri-modal, four-modal, five-modal, etc. In embodiments, the diffractive surface region 30a is configured such that each of these modes is characterized by a distinct peak of surface height”);
disposing one or more etching masks (e.g. paragraph [0058]: “Various processes can be employed to create these structures (e.g., organic mask and etching” and paragraph [0121]: “a step 202 of masking a substrate 10 comprising a thickness 13 and a primary surface 12 with a mask”. See also paragraph [0123]) on the first major surface (paragraph [0121]: “a primary surface 12 with a mask” see also paragraph [0123]) that allow etching only on select regions of the first major surface for forming at least some of the plurality of regions (e.g. paragraph [0123]: “the step 204 of forming the diffractive surface region 30a includes etching the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 through the mask to form the diffractive surface region 30a, wherein each structural feature is a hole at a depth from 50 nm to 250 nm” A mask put on a surface before an etching step prevents etching in the areas that are masked and allows etching in selected regions that are not masked.); and
after each etching mask of the one or more etching mask is disposed on the first major surface, contacting the display article with an etchant (e.g. paragraph [0123]: “The step 204, for example, can be conducted by etching the substrate 10, as comprising a glass composition, with an HF/HNO.sub.3 etchant.” see also paragraph [0128]) for a period of time (e.g. paragraph [0128]: “various etch times and the resulting etch depths”) so as form the plurality of regions comprising the discrete distribution of heights in the substrate (e.g. paragraph [0058]: “Various processes can be employed to create these structures (e.g., organic mask and etching” and paragraph [0128] “resulting etch depths”), such that differences between the heights in the discrete distribution of heights are within 5% of integer multiples of
λ
-
/
4
(paragraph [0065]: “the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Note that the claim requires the difference between the distribution of heights to be within 5% of integer multiples of
λ
-
/
4
, not that the actual heights achieved within the multimodal distribution have to be within 5% of the target height. However, Hart also teaches (paragraph [0066]: “Further, each of these planar regions 21a and 21b can be characterized by a surface height variation (or roughness) within the planar region of… less than 1 nm RMS.” and thus a variation in height differences within a region of less than 5%.), where
λ
-
=
λ
'
m
i
n
-
1
+
λ
'
m
a
x
-
1
2
-
1
, (paragraph [0065]: “For example, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b can be about 25 nm, 50 nm, 75 nm, 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, 250 nm, 275 nm, 300 nm, and all height differences between the foregoing levels. In some embodiments, the difference between the first average height 24a and the second average height 24b may be in a range that corresponds to about ¼ of the wavelength of visible light in air, or odd multiples of the ¼ of the wavelength of visible light.” Given λ′min=451.72 and λ′max=691.72 calculated below,
λ
-
=
451.72
-
1
+
691.72
-
1
2
-
1
=
0.00221376
+
0.00144568
2
-
1
=
546.53
such that
λ
-
/
4
=136.63 nm which is between 125 nm and 150 nm. Alternatively, for a height difference of 150 nm,
λ
-
=600 nm, values of λ′min= 530.77 and λ′max=690 have a harmonic mean of 600 nm)
λmin is a minimum wavelength of a wavelength range of interest, λmax is a maximum wavelength over the wavelength range of interest (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100… as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added, where λmin=450 nm and λmax = 650 nm. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10), [θmin, θmax] defines a range of angles of incidence (paragraph [0010]: “the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic specular reflectance (% R) of less than 0.3% at any incident angle from about 5° to 20° from normal at wavelengths from 450 nm to 650 nm” and paragraph [0076]: “the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100… as measured at an incident angle of 0-20° from normal at one or more wavelengths between 450 nm and 650 nm.” emphasis added. Alternatively, for a given difference in height disclosed in paragraph [0065], such as 150 nm, it is a purely mathematical process to choose two values between 450/cos(5°)=451.72 and 650/cos(20°)=691.72 whose harmonic mean is 150x4=600 nm. For example 530.77 and 690 have a harmonic mean of 600. This can then be identified with two wavelengths between 450 and 650 nm and two angles between 5° and 20°, for which the specular reflectance has been reduced by greater than a factor of 10.) over which it is desired to minimize specular reflectance of the display article (see e.g. paragraph [0076] cited above, and paragraphs [0114]-[0117] that describe some of the process employed to design the diffractive antiglare structure to obtain the desired performance), λ′min=λmin/cos θmin, (given the values above: 450nm/cos(5°)=451.72 nm or let λ′min=530.77 which could correspond to values such as λmin= 525.6 nm and θmin =8°) and λ′max=λmax/cos θmax (given the values above: 650nm/cos(20°)=691.72 nm or let λ′max=690 which could correspond to values such as λmax= 648.4 nm and θmax =20°).”
Note that, although Hart does not explicitly disclose the reduction factor of specular reflection over a specific wavelength range for each height difference of paragraph [0065], given that the additional antireflection layer leads to a reduction by a factor of 100 (see paragraph [0076]) it is self-evident that when any of the choices of paragraph [0065] have an addition of an antireflective coating, they will achieve a factor of 10 or more reduction in specular reflection discussed in paragraph [0076].
Regarding claim 41, Hart teaches “The method of claim 31, wherein the pattern is periodic in two directions that are perpendicular to one another (See Fig. 13A and paragraph [0135]. That the structures are generally periodic in perpendicular horizontal and vertical directions as displayed in Fig. 13A is self-evident. In paragraph [0135] it is disclosed that the etch depth is 0.172 μm. A value of 0.172 μm is one quarter of 688 nm. Since 450nm/cos(5°)=451.72 nm and 650/cos(20°)=691.7 nm are respectively smaller and larger than 688 nm, there exist sets of λmin , θmin , λmax and θmax within the range of 450-650nm and 5-20° for which 688 nm is a harmonic mean thereof, and thus satisfying the functions of claim 1.).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart et al. US 2022/0011468 A1 (hereafter Hart).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Additionally, although subject matter disclosed in the reference, Hart, could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is also applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 6, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1” however, the relied upon embodiments for claim 1 do not specifically teach “wherein λmin=400 nm and λmax=800 nm.”
Hart example 5B teaches “wherein λmin=400 nm and λmax=800 nm (see Fig. 20A and paragraph [0149]: “Referring now to FIG. 20A, a plot is provided of first-surface specular reflectance (% R) vs. visible and near-IR wavelengths (nm) of display articles according to this example (Ex. 5B) and comparative display articles (Comp. Exs. 5A-5C). As is evident from FIG. 20A, the specular reflectance of the example with a strengthened glass substrate having a roughened surface region and a 5-layer AR coating disposed thereon is approximately an order of magnitude lower than the comparative samples with a bare, strengthened glass and the same 5-layer AR coating.” Note that compared to bare glass (uppermost thin solid-line), the reduction is by more than a factor of 10).”
However, example 5B is not of an embodiment with a discrete distribution of heights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the visible design wavelength, for which the difference in heights is λ/4, such that the reduction in specular reflectance by a factor of at least 10 covers the wavelength range of interest from 400 nm to 800 nm as suggested by Hart example 5B, Fig. 20A and paragraph [0149], in order to obtain the desired optical properties from the visible to near-IR wavelengths as taught by Hart paragraph [0149] and Figs. 21-23 and descriptions thereof in paragraphs [0154]-[0156].
Regarding claim 7, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein the specular reflectance is reduced by at least a factor of 100 as compared to the untextured version of the first major surface (paragraph [0076]: “That is, the diffractive surface region 30a of a display article 100 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B can lower the specular reflectance of the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 by a factor of 10, and the addition of the antireflective coating 60 can further lower the specular reflectance by a factor of 10, leading to a reduction in the specular reflectance of the display article 100 of FIG. 1C of about a factor of 100.”).”
However, Hart does not explicitly teach that any given multimode distribution, with any given height difference from paragraph [0065] literally meets a reduction of a factor of 100, just that within the embodiments of the disclosure, such values are achieved.
However, Hart further teaches (e.g. paragraph [0131]): “According to this example, an array of structural features (i.e., holes) was developed on a glass substrate with depths of 0.15 μm, 0.2 μm and 0.23 μm (Samples 950, 951, 952, respectively) according to a method consistent with the principles of the disclosure. Table 2 below lists the optical properties measured on these samples, including PPD.sub.140 (%, as measured in a display unit at 0°), transmissivity (%), haze (%, as measured in transmission at 0°), DOI (coupled, %, as measured in reflectance at 20°) and specular reflectance, Rs (coupled, %, as measured in reflectance at 20°). As is evident from Table 2, the sample (950) with an etch depth of 0.15 μm exhibits DOI<80%, PPD.sub.140<2%, and a haze<5%, as consistent with the diffractive surface regions consistent with the disclosure. The other samples, with depths of 0.2 and 0.23 μm, do not exhibit this combination of optical properties. This illustrates the value of preferred depth ranges in achieving targeted combinations of properties, which may vary for different preferred applications.” emphasis added. See also paragraph [0133]: “As is evident from Table 3, the optimal etch depth range in terms of the optical property measurements corresponds to ˜¼ wavelength of light in air, i.e., the samples at etch depths of 0.141 and 0.172 μm.” See also paragraphs [0116]-[0118] and Figs. 3-5.
Thus Hart discloses the claimed invention except for achieving a factor of 100 reduction in specular reflection for a height difference that is one quarter of the harmonic mean of λmin/cosθmin and λmax/cosθmax as defined in claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experimentally optimize the etch depth to achieve the factor of 100 reduction in specular reflection disclosed in paragraph [0076] for the desired wavelength and angle ranges, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the height difference is an art recognized results effective variable in that influences all of the optical properties of the device as taught by Hart paragraphs [0131] and [0133]. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the height difference because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Hart discloses that such a factor of 100 reduction in specular reflection is achievable within the embodiments of their invention.
Regarding claim 11, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 1, wherein a transmitted haze of the light incident on the first major surface is less than or equal to 4% (see e.g. Fig. 10B where etch depths of less than 0.2 µm, i.e. 200 nm, achieve haze of less than 2%.).”
However, Hart fails to explicitly teach “throughout an entirety of a wavelength range from 400 nm to 800 nm.”
Hart example 5B teaches “wherein λmin=400 nm and λmax=800 nm (see Fig. 20A and paragraph [0149]: “Referring now to FIG. 20A, a plot is provided of first-surface specular reflectance (% R) vs. visible and near-IR wavelengths (nm) of display articles according to this example (Ex. 5B) and comparative display articles (Comp. Exs. 5A-5C). As is evident from FIG. 20A, the specular reflectance of the example with a strengthened glass substrate having a roughened surface region and a 5-layer AR coating disposed thereon is approximately an order of magnitude lower than the comparative samples with a bare, strengthened glass and the same 5-layer AR coating.” Note that compared to bare glass (uppermost thin solid-line), the reduction is by more than a factor of 10).”
However, example 5B is not of an embodiment with a discrete distribution of heights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the visible design wavelength, for which the difference in heights is λ/4, such that the reduction in specular reflectance by a factor of at least 10 and the haze less than 4% covers the wavelength range of interest from 400 nm to 800 nm as suggested by Hart example 5B, Fig. 20A and paragraph [0149], in order to obtain the desired optical properties from the visible to near-IR wavelengths as taught by Hart paragraph [0149] and Figs. 21-23 and descriptions thereof in paragraphs [0154]-[0156].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 and 32-33 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the far-field scattering pattern approximates a Laguerre-Gaussian mode.”
The most pertinent references with respect to claim 4 are Hart et al. US 2022/0011468 A1 (hereafter Hart), Feng et al. US 20220011478 A1 (hereafter Feng) and Joo et al. WO 2024/129475 A1 (hereafter Joo).
Joo explains the features of a Laguerre-Gaussian mode see paragraph [0087] “An example azimuthally uniform function may any of the by the Laguerre-Gaussian (“LG”) modes, expressed as
PNG
media_image1.png
38
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where l is an azimuthal index, kmax is a wavenumber associated with a maximum scattering intensity (associated with θO), and ci is a normalization factor. The LG modes beneficially provide an (l - 1th) order zero at wavenumbers equal to 0 (representing specular reflection), with greater l values being associated with a flatter distribution of scattering amplitudes around specular reflectance. The LG modes also beneficially decay exponentially at large wavenumbers (associated with large angles of scattering).”
Thus Joo teaches that Laguerre-Gaussian modes are “donut” modes about the specular reflection angle, with decaying power at large angles of scattering.
Feng teaches a display article (example 6, Figs. 1, 3 and 6) having a diffractive surface region (16) on the top major surface (12), with a plurality of regions (32, 26 and 82) having a discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 3) wherein the specular reflectance is reduced by at least a factor of 10 as compared to an untextured version (example 6 in Table 2 has a specular reflection in Gloss Units (GU) of 4.6-6.4. Hart teaches in paragraph [0132] “Note that the Rhopoint IQ Gloss Haze & DOI Meter reports an Rs value in gloss units (GU), as listed in Table 2, that is normalized to a maximum of 100 for a flat glass having an index of 1.567 illuminated at 20° angle of incidence and no back-surface reflectance. Such glass is known to have a first-surface absolute reflectance (% R) value of 4.91%. Thus, the Rs value reported by the Rhopoint IQ Meter can be converted to an absolute specular reflectance value (% R value) by multiplying by a factor of 4.91/100. As such, Sample 950, with an Rs amplitude of ˜6 at 0°, corresponds to a first-surface absolute specular reflectance value (% R) of 6/100*4.91%=˜0.295%.” Using this additional information regarding gloss units, it can be seen that any gloss unit less than 10, reduces the specular reflection by greater than a factor of 10.).”
Feng further teaches “wherein the far-field scattering pattern approximates a Laguerre-Gaussian mode (see Figs. 16C and 17A, the specular reflectance is a donut mode with decaying power at large angles of scattering and thus “approximates a Laguerre-Gaussian mode”.).”
However, the etch depth (height difference) in example 6 of Feng is 0.26 to 0.28 µm, which is one quarter of 1,040 to 1,120 nm which is outside of the wavelength range of interest, thus Feng example 6 fails to teach (claim 1): “differences between heights in the discrete distribution of heights are within 5% of integer multiples of λ/4, where
λ
-
=
λ
'
m
i
n
-
1
+
λ
'
m
a
x
-
1
2
-
1
,
λ′min=λmin/cos θmin, and λ′max=λmax/cos θmax.”
Feng example 12, paragraph [0168], Table 3, likewise has a specular reflectance in gloss units of 8-9, and has an etch depth of 0.16 µm, which is a quarter of 640 nm. However, a roughness of 5 nm to 100 nm has been imparted to the surface, thus the distribution in heights is not discrete with differences within 5% of integer multiples of λ/4.
There is no proper combination of Feng in view of Hart or Hart in view of Feng that would simultaneously meet all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 without improper hindsight. In particular, it is unclear from Feng and Hart what parameter values would be needed to achieve both a scattering pattern approximating a Laguerre-Gaussian mode and the factor of 10 reduction in specular reflection with a height difference within 5% of one quarter of the harmonic mean of the angle-adjusted wavelength region of interest.
The most pertinent references with respect to claim 13 are Hart et al. US 2022/0011468 A1 (hereafter Hart) and Feng et al. US 2023/0028863 (hereafter Feng 2023).
Regarding claim 13, Hart teaches “The display article of claim 12, wherein the discrete distribution of heights comprises three or more heights (paragraph [0064]: “This multimodal distribution can have a plurality of surface height modes, e.g., the distribution may be… tri-modal, four-modal, five-modal, etc.”), wherein the discrete distribution of heights comprises at least four heights (paragraph [0064]: “This multimodal distribution can have a plurality of surface height modes, e.g., the distribution may be… four-modal, five-modal, etc.”)…
a first plurality of regions having the minimum height occupy a first combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region (the combined surface area percentage of the regions with the smallest height relative the imaginary base plane), and
the first combined surface area percentage is less than (paragraph [0064]: “These peaks may be distinguished by a decrease in area fraction of at least 20%, at least 50% or at least 80% from the peak surface height value between the distinct peaks associated with each of the modes.” Thus the area fraction of each shorter height is sequentially decreasing by some percentage of at least 20%.) a second combined surface area percentage occupied by a second plurality of regions having the second height (the combined surface area percentage of the regions with the second smallest height relative the imaginary base plane)
a third plurality of regions having the third height occupy a third combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region (the combined surface area percentage of the regions with the third smallest height relative the imaginary base plane),
a fourth plurality of regions having the fourth height occupy a fourth combined surface area percentage of the diffractive surface region (the combined surface area percentage of the regions with the fourth smallest height relative the imaginary base plane),
However, Hart fails to teach “thet least four heights comprising a minimum height hmin, a second height within 5% of hmin+λ/4, a third height within 5% of hmin+λ/2, and a fourth height within 5% of hmin+3λ/4, wherein: …
the first combined surface area percentage is within 5% of the fourth combined surface area percentage,
the second combined surface area percentage is within 5% of the third combined surface area percentage, and
the combined surface area percentage associated with each height is less than or equal to 40%.”
Feng 2023 teaches a display articles having a diffractive surface region on the first major surface thereof, having a plurality of regions with a discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 7). Feng Fig. 7 further teaches “at least four heights comprising a minimum height hmin, (34) a second height (54b) within 5% of hmin+λ/4 (given the scale the difference in height 54b-34 is about 141 nm, which is one quarter of 564 nm which is in the visible range), a third height (54a) within 5% of hmin+λ/2 (given the scale the difference in height 54a-34 is about 276 nm, which is one half of 551.8 nm which is within 4% of 564 nm), and a fourth height (28) within 5% of hmin+3λ/4 (given the scale the difference in height 28-34 is about 416 nm, which is three quarters of 554.5 nm which is within 3% of 564 nm).
The histogram aspect of Fig. 7 also depicts relative combined surface area percentages.
However, although Feng 2023 discusses reducing specular reflectance, Feng 2023 provides no disclosure of the numeric values achieved. Moreover, the surface area percentages do not meet “the first combined surface area percentage is less than a second combined surface area percentage occupied by a second plurality of regions having the second height…
the first combined surface area percentage is within 5% of the fourth combined surface area percentage,
the second combined surface area percentage is within 5% of the third combined surface area percentage.”
There is no proper combination of Feng 2023 in view of Hart or Hart in view of Feng 2023 that would simultaneously meet all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 without improper hindsight. In particular, it is unclear from Feng and Hart what parameter values would be needed to achieve both the factor of 10 reduction in specular reflection and the recited relationships between the combined surface area percentages.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: wherein determining the pattern for the plurality of regions comprises determining an ideal combined surface area percentage for each height in the discrete distribution of heights using the following relation
FA=1,
where A is a vector having N entries, with N corresponding to a number of heights in the discrete distribution of heights, 1 is a unity column vector with N entries, and F is an N×N matrix, with each value Fij being computed as
PNG
media_image2.png
46
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 33 depends from claim 32 and is allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amako et al. US 2008/0304153 A1 “Optical Element and Projection Display Device” Fig. 1B and paragraphs [0012]-[0013] and [0077]-[0083] pertinent to the state of the art, in particular the arrangement of heights at integer multiples of a design wavelength for optimal transmission and reflectance characteristics for a display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights