DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim requires that the separation distance be less than half of the solar light wavelengths. It is well known that the full range of solar wavelengths range from gamma and x-rays to radio, i.e. an extremely broad range of emission wavelengths. Thus the claimed separation distance may be less than half of one wavelength, while not being less than half of an adjacent wavelength, i.e. the metes and bounds of the claim is variable based on its construction by one of ordinary skill in the art and is indefinite. Clarification 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (KR 20120060042 A).
Regarding claim 1, 6, and 9, Song teaches a method for creating an anti-reflective surface (Figs. 13), the method comprising:
patterning a material (102) on a substrate (100) to mask the substrate (Fig. 13B and 13C); and
etching the substrate to produce a nanotextured surface, the nanotextured surface comprising a plurality of nanostructures (id.), each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures having a base (103 being etched into cones having a base disposed on layer 104);
wherein the plurality of nanostructures are sized smaller than solar light wavelengths (Abstract, “A solar cell using a substrate integrated with an antireflective nano structure and a fabricating method thereof are provided to minimize a reflection amount of light generated due to a refractive index difference between the substrate and air by forming an anti-reflective nano structure having a cycle or an average distance below an optical wavelength … … More preferably, it is preferable to have a period smaller than (wavelength) / (refractive index of the incident medium). In the case of sunlight, since light enters a solar cell that is an optical device from air (refractive index = 1), it is preferable to have a cycle of about 300 nm or less.”) and shaped such that the nanotextured surface has an effective refractive index that has a gradual variation to a refractive index of the substrate as a function of height from the base of each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 3B, showing the refractive index variation from tip to base where it matches the substrate; see also Fig. 4, variation from air 1.0 to that of the glass substrate 1.47, “In addition, the filling ratio of the antireflective nanostructure 110 (which is closely related to the distance between adjacent structures) is preferably as large as possible to induce the effective refractive index to change more gradually, as shown in FIG. 3B … That is, the anti-reflective nanostructure 110, the smaller the period, the higher the height, the parabola type, the filling ratio is good … In addition, the non-periodic structure in the non-reflective nanostructure 110 refers to a structure in which the height of each structure and the distance between adjacent structures are not constant, as shown in FIG. 3C. Even in such an aperiodic structure, the average distance between adjacent protrusions can be regarded as a period.”).
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein etching the substrate comprises anisotropically etching the substrate and isotropically etching the substrate (“Referring to FIG. 13C, for example, a dry etching process may be performed on the entire surface of the substrate 100 … An antireflective nanostructure 110 'is formed. The remaining buffer layer and the metal particles 102 are then removed by wet etching”; i.e. anisotropic and isotropic etching, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Song discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bases of adjacent nanostructures of the plurality of nanostructures are in contact with one another (Figs. 2, 3A-C, 4, 7, 8, at least).
Regarding claim 5, Song discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the gradual variation in the effective refractive index varies from a refractive of index of 1.0 to the refractive index of the substrate (Fig. 4, air at 1.0 to glass substrate 100).
Regarding claim 7, Song discloses the method of claim 1, Song teaches that the period (i.e. separation distance) is 300nm or less (Description of Embodiments, ¶9, “For example, in the case of sunlight, since light of about 300 nm to 3000 nm is incident, it should have a period of about 300 nm or less”), but as best understood does not explicitly show wherein a separation distance between adjacent nanostructures of the plurality of nanostructures is less than half of the solar light wavelengths.
However, Song’s period is 300nm or less for an incident waveband of 300nm to 3000nm and is therefore less than half of the solar wavelengths for the 600nm to 3000nm waveband.
Regarding claim 8, Song discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein etching the substrate comprises plasma etching (“Referring to FIG. 9C, by performing a dry etching process on the entire surface of the substrate 100 using the metal particles 102 as a mask, for example, using an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) etching apparatus.”; dry etch also disclosed for Figs. 13 as discussed supra).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Clevenger (US 20090117360 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Song discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly show wherein anisotropically etching the substrate and isotropically etching the substrate are performed simultaneously.
Clevenger drawn to polymer block semiconductor fabrication of antireflective coatings (¶34, ¶49, ¶73; cf. Applicant’s specification ¶5) explicitly shows anisotropically etching the substrate and isotropically etching the substrate can be performed simultaneously in semiconductor fabrication methods (¶34, ¶49, ¶73), which methods analogous with that of Song (Song, “Here, the substrate 100 is preferably made of, for example, a transparent glass substrate or a transparent polymer substrate, but is not limited thereto. Any substrate having a transparent material may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have carried out processes together in the method of Song according to the teachings of Clevenger toward shortening fabrication timelines and thus increasing yield.
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Song discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly show further comprising forming a template from the patterned material for use as a mask for etching the substrate.
Clevenger drawn to polymer block semiconductor fabrication (cf. Applicant’s specification ¶5) explicitly shows forming a template from the patterned material for use as a mask for etching the substrate (¶49, template layer 30 formed of oxide and patterned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the patterned template of Clevenger known to be operable for implemented antireflection structures with the antireflection fabrication method of Song and thus obtaining a predictable result with high expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030180476 A1 discloses an antireflective member and fabrication method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights