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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 6/22/26 have been considered as follows.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejections based on modified interpretation of the prior art teaching.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 34,36-37,42-43 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Kishinami (US 20120183288, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Kishinami (Fig. 1) teaches A hybrid lens comprising:
a glass substrate (30);
a resin lens (34) provided on at least one surface of the glass substrate;
an adhesive layer (35) provided between the glass substrate and the resin lens; and
a metal compound layer (18c, [84,113], “chromium oxide”, “similar”) provided between the glass substrate and the resin lens, wherein
the metal compound layer is a black layer ([84], “black”),
the resin lens has an effective region at a center of the resin lens in a plan view, the effective region having a convex shape (34a as seen in Fig. 1),
the resin lens further has a wall section (7) surrounding a periphery of the effective region, the wall section protruding in a direction orthogonal to the at least one surface of the glass substrate away from the glass substrate (as seen in Fig. 1), and
in the direction orthogonal to the at least one surface of the glass substrate, a highest position of the wall section is located farther from the at least one surface of the glass substrate than a highest position of the resin lens in the effective region (so as to form a gap between 34a and 4).
Regarding claim 36, Kishinami further teaches The hybrid lens according to claim 34, wherein the metal compound layer comprises a metal oxide ([84], “chromium oxide”).
Regarding claim 37, Kishinami further teaches The hybrid lens according to claim 34, wherein the metal compound layer comprises a chromium compound ([84], “chromium oxide”).
Regarding claim 42, Kishinami further teaches (Fig. 1) The hybrid lens according to claim 34, wherein the adhesive layer joins the metal compound layer and the resin lens.
Regarding claim 43, Kishinami further teaches (Fig. 1) The hybrid lens according to claim 34, wherein the metal compound layer is provided on the at least one surface of the glass substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 1,11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishinami in view of Iyer (US 20120229754), and further in view of HIDEYUKI (JP 2009114390, as evidenced by the translation, all of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kishinami teaches (Fig. 1) A hybrid lens comprising:
a glass substrate (30);
a resin lens (34) provided on at least one surface of the glass substrate;
an adhesive layer (55) provided between the glass substrate and the resin lens; and
a black layer (18c, [84,113], “chromium oxide”, “black”, “similar”) provided between the glass substrate and the adhesive layer, wherein
the resin lens has an effective region at a center of the resin lens in a plan view, the effective region having a convex shape (34a as seen in Fig. 1),
the resin lens further has a wall section (7) surrounding a periphery of the effective region, the wall section extending protruding in a direction orthogonal to the at least one surface of the glass substrate away from the glass substrate, and
in the direction orthogonal to the at least one surface of the glass substrate, a highest position of the wall section is located farther from the at least one surface of the glass substrate than a highest position of the resin lens in the effective region (so as to form a gap between 34a and 4).
Kishinami does not explicitly teach
a glass transition temperature of the resin lens is higher than a glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer, and
a difference between the glass transition temperature of the resin lens and the glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer is from 97 to 150° C.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Iyer teaches ([6], “the adhesive layer may be a visco-elastic material and have a glass transition temperature in the range of 0-20.degree. C”) a glass transition temperature of an adhesive layer is 0-20° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kishinami and Iyer for the purposes of reducing the stress of the resin lens for broad temperature range application.
Further, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, HIDEYUKI teaches (Table 2, Comparative example 1, 141, “ガラス転移温度”means glass transition temperature) a glass transition temperature of a resin is 141° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of HIDEYUKI and Kishinami in view of Iyer such that
a glass transition temperature of the resin lens is higher than a glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer (141 vs 0-20), and
a difference between the glass transition temperature of the resin lens and the glass transition temperature of the adhesive layer is from 97 to 150° C (from 121 to 141)
for the purposes of higher temperature environment application.
Regarding claim 11, Kishinami further teaches The hybrid lens according to claim 1, wherein the black layer comprises a metal compound ([84], “chromium oxide”).
Regarding claim 12, Kishinami further teaches The hybrid lens according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer joins the black layer and the resin lens (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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 on (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 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights