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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1-14, in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 December 2025.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukagawa et al. (US 2022/0140008 A1)(Fukagawa).
US 2022/014008 A1 qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2) based upon the filing date of its foreign priority document, JP 2020-181332, for subject matter disclosed in the foreign priority document. See MPEP 2151. JP 2020-181332 was filed on 29 October 2020 which is before the earliest priority date claimed in the instant application.
Foreign application number JP 2020-181332 was published as JP 2022072089 A. In the rejection below, the translation of JP 2022072089 A (which is therefore the translation of JP 2020-181332) that accompanies this action will be cited below.
Fukagawa discloses an optical element comprising multiple coatings. See the abstract and Figure 3. The optical element includes a substrate (10) formed of resin. See Figure 3 and paragraph [0027]. The optical elements include the layer structure 4. Id. Layer structure 4 includes a fifth inorganic insulating film (45) formed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and a second insulating film (42) formed above the fifth layer is formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD). See Figure 11 and paragraphs [0046] and [0057]. The fifth film 45 corresponds to the claimed first film and the second film corresponds to the claimed second film.
Fukagawa does not described the second film (corresponding to the claimed second film) as having fewer defects than the fifth inorganic film (corresponding to the first film). However, the instant specification discloses forming the first layer by CVD and the second layer by ALD. See page 9, lines 8-9 and page 12, lines 19-20. The instant specification further disclose that a layer formed by ALD results in fewer defects than a layer formed by CVD. See page 9, lines 4-9 of the as-filed, instant specification. For these reasons, the claimed defect limitation is presumed to be inherent to the article of Fukagawa.
Figure 3 is annotated with the corresponding claim elements below:
PNG
media_image1.png
898
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Fukagawa discloses the second film (42)(corresponding to the claimed second film) may be silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon nitride (SiN) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3). See paragraph [0056].
As to claim 7, Fukagawa discloses the second layer may be aluminum oxide. See paragraph [0056]. The aluminum oxide is formed by ALD, which is the same as the instant invention. See paragraph [0057]. Accordingly, the claimed index of refraction is presumed to be inherent to the aluminum oxide of Fukagawa.
The properties recited in claim 8 are presumed to be inherent to the second film of Fukagawa because the layer is formed by the same method as the instant invention, i.e., ALD.
As to claim 9, the second layer of Fukagawa is formed by ALD. See paragraph [0057].
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa et al. (US 2022/0140008 A1)(Fukagawa) in view of Kato (US 2019/0393285 A1)(Kato).
As above, the translation of JP 2022072089 A that accompanies this action will be cited below.
This rejection interprets Fukagawa in a manner differently than the interpretation employed above.
Fukagawa discloses an optical element comprising multiple coatings. See the abstract and Figure 3. The optical element includes a light transmissive substrate (7) formed of glass or quartz. See Figure 3, paragraph [0016].
The optical elements include the layer structure 4. Layer structure 4 includes a first inorganic insulating film (41) formed by chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and a second insulating film (44) is formed by ALD above the first layer. See Figure 11 and paragraphs [0061] and [0091]. The first film 41 corresponds to the claimed first film, and the fourth film 44 corresponds to the claimed second film.
Fukagawa does not described the fourth film (corresponding to the claimed second film) as having fewer defects than the first inorganic film (corresponding to the first film). However, the instant specification discloses that forming the first layer by CVD and the second layer by ALD. See page 9, lines 8-9 and page 12, lines 19-20. The instant specification further disclose that a layer formed by ALD results in fewer defects than a layer formed by CVD. See page 9, lines 4-9 of the as-filed, instant specification. For these reasons, the claimed defect limitation is presumed to be inherent to the article of Fukagawa.
Figure 3 is annotated with the corresponding claim elements below:
PNG
media_image2.png
898
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukagawa differs from claim 1 by failing to teach that the transmissive substrate 7 is a resin.
Kato teaches a display device having a second light transmissive (upper) substrate which is formed of the same material as a first substrate of the display. See paragraph [0076]. The first (and therefore the second) substrate may be formed of glass or various organic polymers. See paragraph [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the glass substrate (7) of Fukagawa with the second substrate of Kato formed of an organic polymer substrate as suggested by Kato. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to have been obvious to have selected a known material (such as a transparent cover formed of resin) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
The features of claims 2 and 3 can be seen in Figures 3 and 11 of Fukagawa.
As to claim 4, Fukagawa teaches layers 42 and 43 in between layers the first layer 41 and the fourth layer 44 (corresponding to the claimed second film). Layer 42 is preferably aluminum oxide. See paragraph [0077]. The third layer 43 is preferably silicon nitride. See paragraph [0082]. In other words, Fukagawa teaches alternating layers of materials having different indices of refraction. Such a structure inherently produces an antireflective effect.
As to claim 5, Fukagawa teaches the fourth film 44 (corresponding to the claimed second film) may be aluminum oxide. See paragraph [0082].
As to claim 6, Fukagawa teaches the fourth film (corresponding to the claimed second film) may have a thickness of 20 to 100 nm. See paragraph [0052]. This range overlaps the claimed range, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, Fukagawa teaches the fourth film 44 (corresponding to the claimed second film) may be aluminum oxide, and the film is formed by ALD. See paragraphs [0082] and [0091]. Accordingly, the claimed index of refraction is presumed to be inherent to the aluminum oxide of Fukagawa.
The properties recited in claim 8 are presumed to be inherent to the fourth film of Fukagawa because the layer is formed by the same method as the instant invention, i.e., ALD. See paragraph [0051].
As to claim 9, the fourth film 44 of Fukagawa is formed by ALD. See paragraph [0051].
As to claim 10, the structure shown in Figure 3 is present over the viewable surface of the article (see the abstract), and therefore, would be present on the effective area.
As to claims 11 and 13, the series of layers 4, and the upper transmissive substrate 7 receive light from the light emitting element 20. See paragraph [0019]. Further as to claim 13, the article may be a laptop computer (Figure 22) which is mobile.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa et al. (US 2022/0140008 A1)(Fukagawa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cronin et al. (US 2022/0244392 A1)(Cronin).
Fukagawa anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Fukagawa teaches the invention is employed as an electro optic device such as mobile phone or smart phone. See paragraph [0127].
Fukagawa fails to teach a distance measuring device as recited in claims 12 and 14.
Cronin teaches a Lidar scanning device that is employed in a smart phone. See paragraphs [0006] and [0024]-[0025].
The system includes a laser emitter for emitting laser light, and a detection unit in the phone portion containing a display. See paragraphs [0019] and [0024]. The system measures the distance to an object. Id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the lidar system disclosed by Cronin in a phone as disclosed by Fukagawa. Incorporation of the lidar system into the phone allows the phone to generate 3D models of objects. See paragraph [0002].
The combined teachings of Fukagawa and Cronin results in the light emitting and receiving units as part of the phone, and the phone unit comprises the display and electrooptic device of Fukagawa.
As to claim 14, the system described by the combination of Cronin and Fukagawa is mobile because it is a smartphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights