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 .
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed on 7/28/26 has been entered. Claims 9-10 are pending examination, claims 1-8 have been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner acknowledges and accepts Applicant’s special definition for “high-temperature environment” recited at [0007] of Applicant’s original disclosure: “hereinafter, ‘high-temperature environment’ refers to an environment at about 90oC to 100oC”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "to cleave the chain bonds of the polymethyl methacrylate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as nowhere prior have “chain bonds of the polymethyl methacrylate” been disclosed. For purposes of examination “to cleave the chain bonds of the polymethyl methacrylate” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of “to cleave chain bonds of the polymethyl methacrylate”.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulz et al (“Plasma Etching and Coating Techniques to Achieve Antireflection Properties in Combination with Additional Surface Functions on Plastic Optics” 51st Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, April 19–24, 2008, pg 417-421; hereafter Schulz). {Kaless et al “NANO-motheye antireflection pattern by plasma treatment of polymers” Surface & Coatings Technology 200 (2005) 58-61 {hereafter Kaless}, {Leitel et al “Broadband Antireflective Structures on PMMA by Plasma Treatment” Plasma Process. Polym. 2007, 4, S878–S881; hereafter {Leitel}, and {Munzert et al (US 2009/0261063); hereafter {Munzert}; {Mizuno et al (US 5,790,503); hereafter {Mizuno} relied upon solely as evidence}.
Claim 9: Schulz teaches a method for producing an optical component (See, for example, abstract), comprising:
a fine uneven structure forming step of changing a surface of a PMMA resin (PMMA) substrate by ion irradiation, so as to form a moth eye structure as a fine uneven structure (NANO-motheye) on the surface of the substrate (See, for example, Fig 1a, Fig 1c sample “PMMA, structure (a)”, abstract, introduction, experimental section, Fig 5 and supporting details; particularly focusing on “untreated” (AKA undergoing the ion / plasma structuring, but not the precoating with the initial layer (TiO2/ Ta2O5) {Kaless} (reference “[3]” from introduction of Schulz) evidences such fine uneven structure is a moth eye structure (nano-motheye) (see, for example, title, abstract, Fig 4-5);
and a protective film forming step of evaporating and depositing a deposition material on the surface of the substrate (such as thermal evaporation of a silane to form a 30 nm thickness silicon oxide layer) (See, for example, experimental section, Fig 5 (particularly samples “(c)-(e)” thereof) and supporting text, and the summary wherein Schulz explicitly teaches wherein the thin silica layer helps with mechanical protection). With respect to the resultingly claimed material property that the protective film is configured to / capable of suppressing collapse of the fine uneven structures formed on the surface of the substrate when in a high-temperature environment, such a claimed property is believed inherent as Schulz’s coating is deposited by the claimed method (See above and below), has taught the same claimed substrate material (PMMA as exemplified in Applicant’s specification), also the same claimed protective film material (silicon oxide, which intrinsically is an insulating material) is used, and further the optical thickness (as further claimed in dependent claim 10) is similarly anticipated (see rejection of claim 10 below). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
wherein the fine uneven structure forming step comprises discharging plasma in a depressurized container for ion irradiation (Ar/O2 ) in the plasma atmosphere, so as to cleave the chain bonds of the substrate and form the fine uneven structure on a surface of the substrate (see, for example, abstract, introduction, figures and pg 417, and {Leitel} (similarly directed to oxygen / argon plasma etching) at the 1st column of pg S881 wherein it evidences that “ions impinging on the surface (of PMMA) are able to break the chemical bonds of PMMA due to their kinetic energy.”
the protective film forming step comprises, in the same container as that of the fine uneven structure forming step, adhering a silicon oxide on the surface of the substrate by vacuum evaporation using the silicon oxide as the deposition material, so as to form a silicon oxide film on the moth-eye fine uneven structure on the surface of the substrate (See, for example, introduction, experimental section, Fig 1a &c, Fig 5 (and supporting text), and summary).
and a transmittance at a wavelength around 550 nm under the high-temperature environment of 90° C. to 100° C. is 95% or more (See, for example, Fig 1C, and pg 418-420; wherein transmittance of the only-structured PMMA substrate (sample (a), no initial layer)) has have demonstrated transmission of >96% at a wavelength of 550 nm of plasma, further although no exemplary embodiment of PMMA (a) receiving the SIO2 coating was tested for transmission, the application of additional protective SiO2 coating has additionally demonstrated gains in transmission values on the order of +3.5% improvement from original values and stabilization of other alternative etched structures (such as for Trogamid and Ultrason samples (~1% reflection / or 99% transmittance at 550; see, for example, Table1) suggestive for gains (or least maintaining) for alternative resin systems such as PMMA. Additionally / alternatively with respect to the claimed material property of capability of achieving a transmittance at a wavelength of 550 nm of 95% or more following / or at a temperature exposure of 90-100oC, such a property is believed inherent as Schulz’s coating is deposited by a method anticipating the claimed method (See above), has taught the same claimed substrate material (PMMA), is the same claimed protective film material (silicon oxide), and further anticipates the optical thickness range as further claimed in dependent claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 below). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 10: Schulz further teaches wherein in the protective film forming step, when irradiation is performed at a wavelength of 550 nm, the silicon oxide film on the structured PMMA has an optical film thickness of ~ 44 nm (~ λ/12 at λ =550 nm)) see, for example, experimental section, figures; calculated from the equation for optical film thickness: OFT = (actual thickness) *(index of refraction); wherein refractive index of SiO2 ~ 1.46 {as evidenced by {Mizuno} col 10 lines 9}, and Schulz taught actual exemplary SiO2 thickness = 30 nm. Applicants claimed OFT range at 550 nm wavelength would equate to 11 nm to 137.5 nm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 9-10, filed 7/28/26, have been fully considered and are only partially persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112 (b) rejections of the claims. Therefore some previous grounds have been withdrawn, while others remain as detailed in the rejection above.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 7/28/26 with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to only focus on alternative embodiments of Schulz wherein an “initial” TiO2 / Ta2O5 layer is formed on the substrates followed by plasma etching. The Applicants arguments ignore alternative embodiments of Schulz wherein PMMA is structured via Ion-bombardment without application of such an “initial layer”; such as can be found at the introduction, Fig 1 (a), Fig 1(c) the “self-organized structure” PMMA(sample (a)), as opposed to sample (b) “structure after applying an initial layer”; see further too Fig 5 wherein just the “self-organized” PMMA structure of Fig 1a (corresponding to the PMMA without applying the initial layer) is explicitly taught to receive the SiO2 coating thereon, without the “initial layer”. {Kaless} evidences such a structure of PMMA sample (a) / Fig 1(a) reads on the claimed “moth-eye structure”. Further “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As Schulz has at least taught embodiments using PMMA without the argued “initial layer”; the Applicants’ arguments directed solely to alternative embodiments possessing non-PMMA substrates and / or possessing the “initial layer” are moot / and are not convincing.
Further for sake of argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claim does not rely upon such an “initial layer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are presented in open, “comprising” language, thus open to additional steps such as application of such an initial layer.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights