DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauschwitz et al. (“Anti-Reflection Nanostructures on Tempered Glass by Dynamic Beam Shaping” 2021; 12 (3), 289).
Regarding claim 1,
Hauschwitz teaches a transparent component that may have a functionalized surface having micro holes (dimples) with sub-wavelength structures to provide anti-reflection properties and is thereby functionalized (Hauschwitz: abstract; Fig. 1; pgs. 2-6). The fill area of the dimples may have a ripple structure of the spot covering 60%, which is within the claimed range of between 20% and 95% (Hauschwitz: pg. 3).
Regarding claim 2,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Applicant specification sates that “randomly arranged” can mean that dimples are randomly distributed in which randomly distributed can mean random distribution or a uniform distribution (Applicant’s specification: par. 0037 and 0038). Hauschwitz further teaches the dots are arranged in a uniform pattern as shown in Figure 1 and thus may be considered randomly arranged, structurally.
Regarding claim 3,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz further teaches an anti-glare functionalization in direct sun (a direct reflection) and thus may reduce direct reflection to some degree (Hauschwitz: pg. 1).
Regarding claim 9,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz further teaches the dimples may have a diameter of about 20 µm, which is within the claimed range of between 3 and 30 µm (Hauschwitz: Fig. 1; pgs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Applicant describes “spatially overlap” in the specification as the dimples touch at an edge or they partially lie on top of each other, i.e., a surface intersection of the dimples exists (Applicant’s specification: par. 0066). Thus, the dimple can be defined in Hauschwitz as the area, such as the boxed area in Figure 1 b, that includes the circle and surface portion extending from said circle, thus the dimples can be considered to touch or intersect at an edge once interpreted in this fashion, which is not precluded by the claims.
Regarding claim 14,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz further teaches the component may be a cover part of a smart device such as smart phones or laptops (Hauschwitz: pgs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 15,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. The limitation requiring the transparent component to be “arranged above a pixel matrix of a display of a smart device, wherein the dimples are smaller than pixels of the pixel matrix” is intended use of the claimed transparent component and is not given patentable weight. The limitations are satisfied if the transparent component is fully capable of being placed over the claimed display. Hauschwitz further teaches the component may be a cover part of a smart device such as smart phones or laptops (Hauschwitz: pgs. 1 and 6). As noted in the rejection of claim 9, the dimples satisfy the claimed diameter of the dimples. Therefore, the transparent component is fully capable of being arranged over a pixel matrix of a display device of a smart device, wherein the dimples are smaller than pixels of the pixel matrix when placed over said device.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauschwitz in view of Qiang et al. (“Picosecond laser microfabrication of infrared antireflective functional surface on As2Se3 glass”, Opto-Electronic Engineering, 2017, 44(12); 1200-1209).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-11,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz teaches making dimples that are created by an adjustable beam with various adjustable parameters affecting the dimples separation and hole structure (Hauschwitz: abstract; pg. 1-6). However, Hauschwitz is silent towards the specific dimple depth being between 200 nm and 1000 nm and a diameter of between 3 and 10 µm.
Qiang teaches functionalizing glass surfaces with picosecond lasers to provide the surface with antireflective functionalization (Qiang: abstract).The laser creates micro-pits (dimples) having dimensions that may be varied such as having a depth of 0.7 µm (700 nm) in one example (Fig. 5), which is within the claimed range of between 200 nm and 1000 nm, and may have a diameter ranging from about 9 µm to about 20 µm (Fig. 6(a)), which overlaps with the claimed 3 to 10 µm that provide anti-reflective properties while improving infrared transmittance (Qiang: abstract; pg. 1204 and 1205). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hauschwitz and Qiang are in the corresponding field of picosecond laser functionalized glass substrates with antireflective functionalization. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the diameter and depth of the lasers of Hauschwitz to be within the claimed ranges to achieve the desired antireflective and transmittance properties as taught by Qiang. Given the relative ranges of the depth (a size variation) relative to a diameter, the 700 nm depth compared to 10 micron diameter, would be a size variation of 7%, which is within the claimed range of between 5 and 80%.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauschwitz in view of Qiang and in further view of Gatzen et al. (US 2020/0198048 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz is silent towards the sparkle of the surface being less than 5%, a distinctness of an image is more than 70%, and a diffusion is more than 22%.
However, the combination of Hauschwitz, Qiang and Gatzen teach the claimed dimple structure, including depth, diameter with Gatzen teaching the claimed roughness as noted in the rejections above/below. Therefore, the combination of Hauschwitz, Qiang, and Gatzen would be expected to possess the claimed properties. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauschwitz in view of Gatzen.
Regarding claim 12,
Hauschwitz teaches the transparent component required by claim 1. Hauschwitz is silent towards the roughness of the functionalized surface being between 0.05 and 1.5 µm
Gatzen teaches micro structuring a glass surface with lasers to adjust inhomogeneous properties (Gatzen: abstract). The surface of the substrate may be adjusted to give a required roughness receiving certain coatings in the sub-micrometer range up to several 10 micrometers which overlaps with the claimed 0.05 and 1.5 µm (Gatzen: par. 0057). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hauschwitz and Gatzen are in the corresponding field of glass substrates functionalized with lasers to form microfeatures. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the roughness of the functionalized surface of Hauschwitz to be within the claimed range to provide adaptation to desired coatings as taught by Gatzen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights