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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge (US 20180081085, of record) in view of MATSUGAI (US 20180108697).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ge teaches (Figs. 1,3-4,7,10) A medical device comprising an optical element (Fig. 4) having a substrate (36) and an anti-reflective coating (42+42T) applied to an application surface of the substrate,
wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises an alternating layer sequence (42) of sublayers having different refractive indices,
wherein, in addition to the alternating layer sequence, the anti-reflective coating comprises an anti-corrosion layer (42T), which is the layer of the anti-reflective coating that is farthest away from the application surface of the substrate,
wherein the anti-corrosion layer is designed such that a ratio of a refractive index of the anti-corrosion layer to a layer thickness of the anti-corrosion layer in nanometers ([44], “hafnium oxide”).
Ge does not explicitly teach the device is a medical device and the ratio is in a range is of 0.3 to 0.9.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, MATSUGAI teaches a device is a medical device ([71], “endoscopes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device is a medical device as taught by MATSUGAI in the teaching of Ge for the purposes of having medical applications.
Ge in view of MATSUGAI does not explicitly teach the ratio is in a range is of 0.3 to 0.9.
However the ratio is “a result-effective variable” because it confers antireflection and scratch resistance. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio is in a range is of 0.3 to 0.9, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the ratio is in a range is of 0.3 to 0.9 for the purposes of having good antireflection and good scratch resistance.
Regarding claim 2, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-corrosion layer (consists of a highly refractive material selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxide, hafnium oxide and mixed oxides thereof ([44], “hafnium oxide”).
Regarding claim 3, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 2, wherein the refractive index of the anti-corrosion layer is in a range of 1.8 to 2.5 (1.9 for hafnium oxide).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ge in view of MATSUGAI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the layer thickness of the anti-corrosion layer is in a range of 3.0 to 6.0 nm.
However the layer thickness is “a result-effective variable” because it confers antireflection and scratch resistance. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the layer thickness of the anti-corrosion layer is in a range of 3.0 to 6.0 nm, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the layer thickness of the anti-corrosion layer is in a range of 3.0 to 6.0 nm for the purposes of having good antireflection and good scratch resistance.
Regarding claim 5, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-corrosion layer is applied by means of sputtering ([42,45], “sputtering”).
Regarding claim 6, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 5, wherein the anti-corrosion layer has a packing density of 90% or more of a theoretically maximum achievable packing density ([45], Ge indicates any suitable deposition techniques can be used including “sputtering” for which a packing density of 90% or more appears to be common practical results, since Applicant does not present any special different sputtering technique different from commonly known ones).
Regarding claim 7, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 5, wherein the anti-corrosion layer has a surface roughness Ra of 0.50 nm or less (roughness from sputtering is a statistical result so there are always some achieving small roughness).
Regarding claim 8, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein after six stripping cycles, the optical element exhibits an increase in reflectance of 1% or less, wherein one stripping cycle includes treatment of the optical element in an ultrasonic bath having a power of 300 W at a temperature of 60° C for one hour, wherein the ultrasonic bath includes an aqueous potassium hydroxide solution having a concentration of 10 percent by weight of potassium hydroxide, based on a total weight of the potassium hydroxide solution (Ge uses same method and material so it is expected to have same performance).
Regarding claim 9, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the alternating layer sequence comprises one or more coats, each coat having a first sublayer and a second sublayer, and the refractive index of the first sublayer being lower than the refractive index of the second sublayer ([42], “alternating thin layers...”).
Regarding claim 10, Ge further teaches (Fig. 10) The medical device according to claim 9, wherein the anti-corrosion layer (42T) is applied directly to a first sublayer of the alternating layer sequence (42).
Regarding claim 11, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 9, wherein the alternating layer sequence comprises at least four coats (42 in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ge in view of MATSUGAI further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the medical device is an endoscope (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 13, Ge further teaches The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical element is a lens or a window (16 in Fig. 3) of the medical device.
Regarding claims 14-15,17-20, mutatis mutandis, the modified Ge in view of MATSUGAI teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 1,8,2-5 rejections above.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Ge in view of MATSUGAI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 14, but does not explicitly teach The medical device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-corrosion layer consists of zirconium oxide.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the anti-corrosion layer consists of zirconium oxide would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices (as zirconium oxide being well known scratch resistant material for coating).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the modified Ge in view of MATSUGAI by having the anti-corrosion layer consists of zirconium oxide for the purposes of design choices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
