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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 claims that the high refractive index layer contains zirconium oxide. However, claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon, claims that the high refractive index layer contains an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, niobium, tantalum, and lanthanum, of which zirconium oxide is not a part of. 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 § 103
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura (JP2003329803A, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Miyamoto (US 2015/0234209), further in view of Abe (US 2017/0212278).
Regarding claim 1, Futamura discloses an optical member ([0001], “an optical article having anti-reflection, optical filter”), comprising:
a plastic base ([0011], “an optical filter function on a synthetic resin substrate,”);
a hard coat layer ([0011], “hard coat”) disposed on the plastic base ([0011], “a synthetic resin substrate that had been previously subjected to a hard coat treatment”); and
an antireflection film disposed on the hard coat layer ([0011], “the above-mentioned film was formed by vacuum deposition on a synthetic resin substrate that had been previously subjected to a hard coat treatment”),
wherein the antireflection film contains high refractive index layers and low refractive index layers that are alternately stacked ([0006], “consisting of alternating layers of high refractive index films and low refractive index films”),
wherein a low refractive index layer of the low refractive index layers contains at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide, calcium fluoride, and magnesium fluoride ([0012], “the second layer was deposited with SiO2”),
wherein a layer disposed closest to the plastic base in the antireflection film is the high refractive index layer ([0012], “The first layer on the substrate was deposited with ZrO2”), and
wherein, in the antireflection film, when the low refractive index layer disposed closest to the plastic base is a first low refractive index layer ([0012], “second layer was deposited with SiO2 (refractive index 1.43, compressive stress) to a physical thickness of 141 nm”), the low refractive index layer disposed next closest to the plastic base after the first low refractive index layer is a second low refractive index layer ([0012], “the fourth layer being 277 nm thick SiO2”), and the high refractive index layer disposed closest to the plastic base is a first high refractive index layer ([0012], “The first layer on the substrate was deposited with ZrO2 (refractive index 2.00, tensile stress) to a physical thickness of 56 nm”), relations of Expressions 1 to 3 are satisfied,
Expression 2 L1/H1≤25.0 (calculated value = 2.52)
Expression 3 (L1+L2)/H1≤50.0 (calculate value = 7.46)
where L1 denotes a physical thickness of the first low refractive index layer ([0012], “141 nm”), L2 denotes a physical thickness of the second low refractive index layer ([0012], “277 nm”), and H1 denotes a physical thickness of the first high refractive index layer ([0012], “56 nm”).
Futamura does not specifically disclose wherein the antireflection film has at least eight layers in total of the high refractive index layers and the low refractive index layers, and Expression 1 L1+L2≥450 nm.
However Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein the antireflection film ([0060], “inorganic multilayer film 3 has a function as an antireflection film”) has at least eight layers in total of the high refractive index layers and the low refractive index layers (as shown in Table 2, comparative example 2, there are eight layers), and Expression 1 L1+L2≥450 nm (sum of second layer and fourth layer of first surface is 2051 nm, which is greater than 450nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Futamura with the wherein the antireflection film has at least eight layers in total of the high refractive index layers and the low refractive index layers, and Expression 1 L1+L2≥450 nm as taught by Miyamoto, for the purpose of improving visibility and contrast ([0007]).
Modified Futamura does not specifically disclose wherein a high refractive index layer of the high refractive index layers contains an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, niobium, tantalum, and lanthanum.
However Abe, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein a high refractive index layer of the high refractive index layers ([0033], “second layer 102, the fourth layer 104, and the sixth layer 106 are high-refractive-index layers”) contains an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, niobium, tantalum, and lanthanum ([0033], “tantalum oxide films serving as the second layer 102, the fourth layer 104, and the sixth layer 106 are high-refractive-index layers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Futamura in view of Miyamoto with the wherein a high refractive index layer of the high refractive index layers contains an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, niobium, tantalum, and lanthanum as taught by Abe, for the purpose of improving the performance of the antireflection film ([0054]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Futamura further discloses wherein Expression 4 is satisfied,
Expression 4 L2≥L1 (277 nm is greater than 141 nm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Futamura further discloses wherein the high refractive index layer contains zirconium oxide ([0012], “The first layer on the substrate was deposited with ZrO2”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Futamura further discloses wherein the low refractive index layer contains silicon dioxide ([0012], “the second layer was deposited with SiO2”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose comprising a water and oil repellent layer on a surface of the antireflection film on an opposite side from the plastic base.
However, Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches comprising a water and oil repellent layer (Fig. 1, element 12, [0070], “The water-and-oil repellent film 12”) on a surface of the antireflection film on an opposite side from the plastic base (as shown in Fig. 1, 12 is opposite from the base 2 of the antireflection film 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Futamura in view of Miyamoto further in view of Abe with the comprising a water and oil repellent layer on a surface of the antireflection film on an opposite side from the plastic base as taught by Miyamoto, for the purpose of improving abrasion resistance of the optical component ([0070]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the antireflection film further contains an SnO2 layer or an ITO layer.
However, Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical member, teaches wherein the antireflection film further contains an SnO2 layer or an ITO layer ([0112], “a dielectric film of ITO or the like is disposed between the high refractive index layer 7 (7') and the low refractive index layer 8 (8')”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical member of Futamura in view of in view of Miyamoto further in view of Abe with the wherein the antireflection film further contains an SnO2 layer or an ITO layer as taught by Miyamoto, for the purpose of reducing fatigue and improving visibility ([0011]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Futamura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Futamura further discloses wherein the optical member is used for a spectacle lens ([0002], “depositing thin films on synthetic resin substrates are widely used in various electronic devices, eyeglass lenses”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Takahashi (US 2015/0226881) teaches an optical member comprising an antireflection film, wherein a high refractive index layer of the high refractive index layers contains an oxide of niobium or tantalum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 25 June 2026
Prosecution Insights