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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 1, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of April 1, 2024 have been fully considered, but are either moot or are not persuasive, as explained below.
With respect to the Matera reference, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the withdrawal of rejections based on Matera.
With respect to the Nielson reference (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0033767 A1), Applicant argues that Nielson fails to disclose the newly-claimed “layer … consisting of pure germanium”, as recited in newly-amended independent Claim 24 (pages 12-14 of the Remarks of April 1, 2024). Specifically, Applicant argues that with respect to Nielson’s “dielectric ribs 92” [also identified as “absorptive ribs”], Nielson requires a composite of germanium mixed with silicon because Nielson discloses that adding silicon to the germanium results in improved corrosion resistance, and provides specific examples of germanium [Ge] percentage ranging from 30% to 99.9% (see pages 12-14 of the Remarks of April 1, 2024 and paragraphs [0069], [0070] and FIG. 9e of Nielson).
However, it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP § 2123, citing In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442; 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, although Nielson may state a preference for including silicon in the germanium of the dielectric ribs 92, as well as example percentages of germanium less than 100%, such statements do not negate the broader disclosures of Nielson, such as paragraphs [0067] and [0068], which specifically disclose the use of only germanium. Paragraph [0067] of Nielson states: “All absorptive rib elements can be absorptive. Alternatively, the absorptive rib elements can include an element that would normally result in a reflective structure if used by itself” (emphasis added by Examiner). Paragraph [0067] goes on to state that elements which are considered to be absorptive include C, Ge [germanium], Si, and Ta. Paragraph [0068] specifically states that “[t]he dielectric rib 92 can be homogeneous throughout” (emphasis added by examiner). Thus, Nielson’s disclosures of absorptive ribs of C, Ge, Si, or Ta which can be homogenous throughout, is a disclosure of dielectric ribs 92 that may be 100% carbon, or 100% germanium, or 100% silicon, or 100% tantalum.
Therefore, Nielson does disclose the newly-claimed “layer … consisting of pure germanium” of independent Claim 24, and thus Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 24-26 and 28-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the phrase: “the eyeglass lens”. However, there is no earlier-recited “eyeglass lens”. Therefore, it is unclear whether this phrase is intended to present the first instance of this component or is intended to refer to an earlier-recited component. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “the optical lens” (corresponding to the preamble of Claim 24).
Claims 25, 26 and 28-30 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 24.
Claim 28 depends from Claim 27, which has been cancelled. It is believed that this Claim was intended to depend from Claim 24, and will be treated as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 24, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson, US 2021/0033767 A1, previously-cited, in view of Takagi et al., US 2019/0079234 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 24, as best understood, Nielson discloses: An optical article comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a wire grid polarizer having an array of parallel wires (polarization structures 12; FIGS. 1-3, 7a-7d, 9a-9e of Nielson);
wherein each of the wires comprises a coating stack having at least one high refractive index material layer having a high absorbance consisting of pure germanium (each polarization structure 12 may have dielectric ribs [absorptive ribs] 92, wherein the absorptive ribs 92 can include C [carbon], Ge [germanium], Si [silicon], Ta [tantalum], or combinations thereof, and can be homogeneous throughout; see paragraphs [0006], [0022], [0047]-[0051], [0066]-[0072] and FIG. 9e of Nielson, but see especially paragraphs [0067], [0068] of Nielson and the Response to Arguments section of this Office Action);
wherein the wire grid polarizer comprises a high reflectivity material layer having a low refractive index being sandwiched between two of the high refractive index material layers having the high absorbance to reduce a front and back reflectance of the eyeglass lens [interpreted as “optical lens”; see rejection of Claim 24 based on 35 USC 112(b) explained above] about greater than four times as compared to a wire grid polarizer comprising a grid having only the high reflectivity material layer having the low refractive index (reflective rib 91 may be sandwiched between two dielectric ribs [absorptive ribs] 92, wherein the presence of the two dielectric ribs [absorptive ribs] 92 is presumed to effectuate a more than 4x reduction in front and back reflectance because Nielson’s disclosures satisfy all of the physical structure and chemical composition required by the claim language; paragraphs [0022], [0069] and FIG. 9e of Nielson; the Office notes that Applicant has not identifed any thicknesses, widths, heights, pitches, duty cycles, materials, or methods of manufacture which accomplish the “greater than four times” reduction of front and back reflection).
Nielson does not appear to disclose: the optical article is a lens.
Takagi is related to Nielson with respect to wire grid polarizers.
Takagi teaches the use of the wire grid polarizer in an optical lens (semi-transmissive polarizing plate provided between display-side lens DL and observer-side lens OL, and configured with a reflective wire-grid polarizing plate; Abstract and paragraphs [0058], [0059] and FIGS. 1, 5, 9, 11 of Takagi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the wire grid polarizer of Nielson in an optical lens, as in Takagi, because such use of wire grid polarizer increases the transmission of image light in the direction along the alignment of the eyes of the observer, thus reducing luminance unevenness between a central region and a peripheral region in the image, and thereby enabling a high quality image, as taught in Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0008], [0072] of Takagi.
Regarding Claim 25, Nielson-Takagi discloses: wherein the reduction of the reflectance of the optical article is greater than the four times when the wire grid polarizer is embedded in a laminate (a thin film 72 may partially or fully fill in channels 13 in-between polarization structures 12; paragraph [0041] and FIGS. 7b, 7c of Nielson).
Regarding Claim 28, as best understood, Nielson-Takagi discloses: wherein the reduction of the reflectance of the optical article having the wire grid polarizer comprising the germanium is greater than four times when compared to the another optical article having the wire grid polarizer comprising the grid of the low refractive index material layer of aluminum (the absorptive ribs 92 can include C [carbon], Ge [germanium], Si [silicon], Ta [tantalum], or combinations thereof, and can be homogeneous throughout, and the reflective ribs 91 may be aluminum; paragraphs [0022], [0051], [0054], [0055], [0062], [0067], [0068] and FIG. 9e of Nielson).
Claim 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson in view of Takagi and further in view of Sales, US 2004/0125449 A1 (previously-cited).
Regarding Claim 26, Nielson-Takagi discloses: a laminate embedding the wire grid polarizer (a thin film 72 may partially or fully fill in channels 13 in-between polarization structures 12; paragraph [0041] and FIGS. 7b, 7c of Nielson).
Nielson-Takagi does not appear to explicitly disclose a material of the laminate such that: wherein a laminate embedding the wire grid polarizer comprises a polyurethane adhesive or a polycarbonate.
Sales is related to Nielson-Takagi with respect to wire grid polarizers.
Sales teaches: wherein a laminate embedding the wire grid polarizer comprises a polyurethane adhesive or a polycarbonate (medium of incidence that surrounds the grid is generally air [index of refraction equal to 1], although it can comprised of a general dielectric, if the grid is embedded or encapsulated in a material exhibiting an index of refraction different from 1, e.g., polycarbonate, SiO.sub.2, or silicon; paragraphs [0007], [0031] of Sales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed or encapsulate the wire grid polarizer of Nielson-Takagi in a polycarbonate, as in Sales, because by embedding the grid in a medium exhibiting a higher index than air, the insertion loss [reduced transmission resulting in lower performance] can be considerably reduced, as taught in paragraphs [0004]-[0009], [0031] of Sales.
Regarding Claims 29 and 30, Nielson-Takagi does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein a polarization efficiency of the lens is greater than 95%; or
wherein a transmission of the wire grid polarizer is about 1.5% under a range of 400-800 nm wavelengths of incident light.
Sales is related to Nielson-Takagi with respect to wire grid polarizers.
Sales teaches: wherein a polarization efficiency of the lens is greater than 95%, and wherein a transmission of the wire grid polarizer is about 1.5% under a range of 400-800 nm wavelengths of incident light (grid polarizer transmits substantially all illumination of a given polarization and suppresses substantially all illumination reflected by an orthogonal polarization, wherein contrast ratios may be 40 dB or greater for visible wavelengths, thereby indicating a transmission ratios [TTM / TTE] of 10,000 to 1 or higher; paragraphs [0003]-[0006], [0011], [0048] and TABLE 2 of Sales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the high polarization efficiency and low transmission (of the non-desired polarization of light) of Sales for the device of Nielson-Takagi because high performance avoids image degradation, as disclosed in paragraph [0005] of Nielson, and prevents undesirable reflections, as taught in paragraphs [0002]-[0006] of Sales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-23 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 1, although the prior art discloses various wire grid polarizers for polarizing an incident light beam in an optical lens, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising the combined features of:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 16, although the prior art discloses various optical lens, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
102
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising the combined features of:
PNG
media_image6.png
74
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 3-15 and 17-23, these claims each depend from either Claim 1 or Claim 16, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872