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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18 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.
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 16 recite that “the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line.” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that “the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line,” as such an “imaginary line” appears to be arbitrary and does not appear to actually be a structure of the optical element. To be clear, any three-dimensional shape would necessarily protrude from some arbitrary defined line, as such a line is two dimensional. Moreover, any non-linear shape necessarily protrudes from a line by definition. As such, it is unclear what structure is intended to be required by the claimed limitation.
For the purposes of examination, any diffractive grating shape that protrudes in some dimension will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 3-11 and 18 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claim 14 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 12 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites that “a radius of the innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a maximum value of the distance between the inner periphery of the any two adjacent ring zones along the radius direction in the plan view.” However, claim 3 depends upon claim 1 which recites that “a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view.” Since an innermost circular zone having a radius less than any one of the distances would also be less than a maximum value of the distances, it is unclear what is required by the claim and this limitation appears to be broader in scope. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring that a radius of an innermost circular zone in a plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites that “a radius of the innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a maximum value of the distance between the inner periphery of the any two adjacent ring zones along the radius direction in the plan view.” However, claim 3 depends upon claim 1 which recites that “a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view.” Since an innermost circular zone having a radius less than any one of the distances would also be less than a maximum value of the distances, claim 3 is broader than claim 1. To be clear, any shape having an innermost circular zone with a radius that is less than only a maximum value of the distance between two zones would not be less than any distance between any two zones.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futhey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,129,718; hereinafter – “Futhey”).
Regarding claim 1, Futhey teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (40, 82, 94 or 38, 84, 96) that has a diffractive grating shape (44, 86); and a second material layer (38, 84, 96 or 40, 82, 94) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (46+48+50+52+54) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53),
wherein a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 2, L. 49-56; C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9; See also claims 2, 4, and 6),
wherein a structure forming the innermost circular zone and recessed portions between structures forming each of the plurality of ring zones are filled with the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53).
Regarding claim 3, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey further teaches that the radius of the innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a maximum value of the distance between the inner periphery of the any two adjacent ring zones along the radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 2, L. 49-56; C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9; See also claims 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a first distance between the circular zone and a second ring zone adjacent to the circular zone is greater than the radius of the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 2, L. 49-56; C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9; See also claims 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 4, as above.
Futhey further teaches that the first distance is maximum among the distances between the inner periphery of the two adjacent ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 2, L. 49-56; C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9; See also claims 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a depth of a recessed portion inside the circular zone in a structure forming the circular zone is less than a depth of a recessed portion between structures forming the respective ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Regarding claim 8, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a height of a structure forming the circular zone is different from a height of a structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Regarding claim 9, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is less than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is less than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Regarding claim 10, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is greater than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is greater than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Regarding claim 11, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a distance between the ring zones is narrower at a position closer to an outside thereof than a center thereof (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 2, L. 49-56; C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9; See also claims 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 18, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Futhey further teaches that a height of an outer edge of the structure forming the circular zone differs from heights of the structures forming each of the ring zones by an adjustment amount, the adjustment amount is calculated according to a refractive index of the first material layer, a refractive index of the second material layer, and a required correction amount for a transmitted wavefront of the diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 18 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0267693; hereinafter – “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (16 or 24) that has a diffractive grating shape (28); and a second material layer (24 or 16) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (36) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162),
wherein a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162),
wherein a structure forming the innermost circular zone and recessed portions between structures forming each of the plurality of ring zones are filled with the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that the radius of the innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a maximum value of the distance between the inner periphery of the any two adjacent ring zones along the radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a first distance between the circular zone and a second ring zone adjacent to the circular zone is greater than the radius of the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 4, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that the first distance is maximum among the distances between the ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a depth of a recessed portion (38) inside the circular zone in a structure forming the circular zone is less than a depth of a recessed portion between structures forming the respective ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a height of a structure forming the circular zone is different from a height of a structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is less than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is less than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is greater than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is greater than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a distance between the ring zones is narrower at a position closer to an outside thereof than a center thereof (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that a height of an outer edge of the structure forming the circular zone differs from heights of the structures forming each of the ring zones by an adjustment amount, the adjustment amount is calculated according to a refractive index of the first material layer, a refractive index of the second material layer, and a required correction amount for a transmitted wavefront of the diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korenaga et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,149,510; hereinafter – “Korenaga”).
Regarding claim 1, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24),
wherein a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8),
wherein a structure forming the innermost circular zone and recessed portions between structures forming each of the plurality of ring zones are filled with the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24).
Regarding claim 3, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that the radius of the innermost circular zone in the plan view is less than a maximum value of the distance between the inner periphery of the any two adjacent ring zones along the radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8).
Regarding claim 4, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a first distance between the circular zone and a second ring zone adjacent to the circular zone is greater than the radius of the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8).
Regarding claim 5, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 4, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that the first distance is maximum among the distances between the ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8).
Regarding claim 6, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a depth of a recessed portion inside the circular zone in a structure forming the circular zone is less than a depth of a recessed portion between structures forming the respective ring zones (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 6, L. 25-46).
Regarding claim 7, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a height of a structure forming the circular zone is different from a height of a structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 46).
Regarding claim 9, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is less than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is less than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 46).
Regarding claim 10, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a refractive index of the first material layer is greater than a refractive index of the second material layer, and the height of the structure forming the circular zone is greater than the height of the structure forming each of the ring zones other than the circular zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 46).
Regarding claim 11, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a distance between the ring zones is narrower at a position closer to an outside thereof than a center thereof (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8).
Regarding claim 12, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24),
wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 12, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that the phase difference function has no extreme value in an optical effective diameter range (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Korenaga teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element having a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), the method comprising:
forming a radius of an innermost circular zone in the plan view to be less than a distance between an inner periphery of any two adjacent ring zones along a radius direction in the plan view (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; C. 11, L. 29 – C. 12, L. 45; See e.g. Table 5, Ex. 4 for α=3λ/4 and Ex. 5 for α=7λ/8),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24).
Regarding claim 16, Korenaga teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element having a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), the method comprising
in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, designing the structure in a state where C is greater than 0 and less than 2π, and forming the diffractive grating shape in accordance with the design (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3),
wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24).
Regarding claim 18, Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 8, as above.
Korenaga further teaches that a height of an outer edge of the structure forming the circular zone differs from heights of the structures forming each of the ring zones by an adjustment amount, the adjustment amount is calculated according to a refractive index of the first material layer, a refractive index of the second material layer, and a required correction amount for a transmitted wavefront of the diffractive optical element (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 46).
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, 12, 14, and 16 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futhey in view of Korenaga.
Regarding claim 7, Futhey teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Futhey fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element of Futhey with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Futhey teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (40, 82, 94 or 38, 84, 96) that has a diffractive grating shape (44, 86); and a second material layer (38, 84, 96 or 40, 82, 94) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (46+48+50+52+54) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53), wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53).
Futhey fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element of Futhey with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Futhey in view of Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 12, as above.
Futhey further teaches that the phase difference function has no extreme value in an optical effective diameter range (See e.g. Figs. 4, 8, and 9; C. 3, L. 25-59; C. 4, L. 5-48; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 35; C. 6, L. 50 – C. 7, L. 59; C. 8, L. 6-53).
Additionally, Korenaga further teaches that the phase difference function has no extreme value in an optical effective diameter range (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Futhey teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element having a first material layer (40, 82, 94 or 38, 84, 96) that has a diffractive grating shape (44, 86); and a second material layer (38, 84, 96 or 40, 82, 94) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (46+48+50+52+54) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53), wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8-9; C. 5, L. 26-41; C. 5, L. 62 – C. 6, L. 5; C. 8, L. 6-26; C. 8, L. 45-53).
Futhey fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, designing the structure in a state where C is greater than 0 and less than 2π, and forming the diffractive grating shape in accordance with the design.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Futhey with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Claim(s) 7, 12, 14, and 16 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Korenaga.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1, as above.
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element of Kobayashi with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi teaches a diffractive optical element comprising: a first material layer (16 or 24) that has a diffractive grating shape (28); and a second material layer (24 or 16) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (36) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162), wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffractive optical element of Kobayashi with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi in view of Korenaga teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 12, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that the phase difference function has no extreme value in an optical effective diameter range (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0015 and 0133-0137).
Additionally, Korenaga further teaches that the phase difference function has no extreme value in an optical effective diameter range (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element having a first material layer (16 or 24) that has a diffractive grating shape (28); and a second material layer (24 or 16) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (36) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162), wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line (See e.g. Figs. 1-5, 8-9, 11, 16, and 20-22; Paragraphs 0110-0112, 0115-0126, 0132-0145, and 0161-0162).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, designing the structure in a state where C is greater than 0 and less than 2π, and forming the diffractive grating shape in accordance with the design.
However, Korenaga teaches a diffractive optical element and method of making the same comprising a first material layer (14a) that has a diffractive grating shape (13); and a second material layer (14b) that is laminated on the first material layer, the diffractive grating shape forming a plurality of concentric annular ring zones (13a) in a plan view from a lamination direction of the first material layer and the second material layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 5, L. 63 – C. 6, L. 24), wherein in a case where, assuming that a reference wavelength is λ, a difference in refractive index between the first material layer and the second material layer is Δn, a radius of each of the ring zones is r, an even-order phase difference function at the radius as a variable is φ(r), a start phase of the phase difference function is C, and a remainder obtained by dividing an added value of φ(r) and C by 2π is MOD(r), and a shape of a structure forming each of the ring zones is defined by Expression obtained by dividing MOD(r) × λ by 2π × Δn, C is greater than 0 and less than 2π (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 3, L. 49 – C. 4, L. 35; C. 6, L. 37-46; C. 7, L. 48 – C. 9, L. 3).
Korenaga teaches this shape based on the phase difference function such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” (C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3) in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost” (C. 4, L. 39-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kobayashi with the shape based on the phase difference function of Korenaga such that “even if the optical adjustment layer of resin that covers such a diffraction grating is formed by a pad printing process, for example, the surface shape of the optical adjustment layer can still be maintained appropriately” and “even if a lot of such diffractive optical elements are mass-produced, those diffractive optical elements will have a uniform shape with the surface shapes of their optical adjustment layer sufficiently matched to each other” in order to provide “a diffractive optical element that can have a reduced weight and thickness and that can be mass-produced with increased reliability and at a reduced cost,” as taught by Korenaga (C. 4, L. 39-46; C. 8, L. 59 – C. 9, L. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 04/13/2026, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, regarding claim 3, Examiner maintains that it is unclear how the radius of the innermost zone can be further defined to be less than a maximum distance between zones when it has already been defined to be less than any distance between zones.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that it is unclear how the diffractive grating shape can be constructed such that it “protrudes from a position of an imaginary line.”
Applicant's arguments, see pages 14-16, filed 04/13/2026, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Futhey have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In Col. 4 lines 52-59 of Futhey, Futhey states that "If the radius of the central zone is designated r0, the radius of the innermost annular zone is designated r₁ and the radius of the second annular zone is designated r₂, the conditions previously described may be expressed by saying that r0² is not equal to r1²-r0² and r2² -r1² is equal to r₁² -r₀². In general, rₙ² -rₙ-₁² is equal to rₙ-1² -rₙ-2² for values of n greater than or equal to 2"” and that “Futhey's condition, r₀² ≠ r₁² -ro², cannot read on the feature "wherein a radius of an innermost circular zone is less than any one of distances between an inner periphery of two adjacent ring zones" recited in the amended claim 1.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, while C. 4, L. 49 – C. 5, L. 9 of Futhey teaches broadly that r12 – r02 does not equal r02, Futhey also teaches the more specific case of r02 < r12 – r02, as in claims 2, 4, and 6. Thus, Futhey does teach the required limitation that a radius of an innermost circular zone is less than any one of distances between an inner periphery of two adjacent ring zones, as it would be impossible for r02 < r12 – r02 without this limitation being satisfied.
It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16-19, filed 04/13/2026, regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Kobayashi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation states “any two adjacent ring zones” which “can be applied for all the adjacent ring zones.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, given the recitation of a maximum distance in claim 3, Examiner maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes that the radius of the innermost circular zone is less than any distance that is defined between any two adjacent zones. That is, the existence of two adjacent zones with a distance between them that is greater than the radius of the innermost zone would meet the claimed limitation. Since Kobayashi teaches two adjacent zones satisfying this feature, the claimed limitation is met.
As best as this limitation is understood, the existence of any singular ring zone with inner peripheries being separated by a distance greater than the radius of the circular zone would meet the claimed limitation. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Kobayashi explicitly teaches such a zone. Specifically, zone 1 in table 1 has an inner periphery of 0.2 on the x-axis and zone 2 in table 1 has an inner periphery of 0.7348469 on the x-axis, for a distance between inner peripheries of 0.5348469, which is clearly greater than the radius of the circular zone, given in table 1 to be 0.2. Thus, Examiner maintains that Kobayashi teaches the required limitation that a radius of an innermost circular zone is less than any one of distances between an inner periphery of two adjacent ring zones.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 19-20, filed 04/13/2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Korenaga have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the blazed grating 13 of Korenaga, which is interpreted as the diffractive grating shape recited in claim 1, is on an aspheric surface instead of an imaginary line” and thus “Korenaga fails to disclose the feature ‘wherein the diffractive grating shape protrudes from a position of an imaginary line’ recited in claim 1.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, this limitation is indefinite as detailed above. Nonetheless, Examiner notes that any shape would protrude from an imaginary line and a shape formed on an aspheric surface very clearly protrudes from an imaginary line as the aspheric surface itself protrudes from the imaginary line. To be clear, an imaginary line can be defined extending along the lens body 11 (including the bottom surface of 11) such that the entire shape 13 protrudes from the imaginary line, as shown in Fig. 2 of Korenaga, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
321
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, an “imaginary line” as recited by the claim need not be straight, and a curved or aspheric line would also read on the claimed “imaginary line.” Thus, even if the aspheric surface 11a of Korenaga were taken to be the imaginary line, the structure of Korenaga would still read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a diffractive grating shape that “protrudes from a position of an imaginary line” as required by the claims. Thus, Examiner maintains that Korenaga teaches the recited limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights