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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1, 3, and 5-23 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 18, and 20 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 § 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 1,3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017218 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Kojima”) in view of Hebrink et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0003904 – hereinafter referred to as “Hebrink”).
Regarding claim 1, Kojima teaches a lens (Claim 5, [0166]) comprising:
a lens unit (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]);
an intermediate layer ([0168] any one of primer, hard coat, and, antireflection layer form an intermediate layer) configured to cover a surface portion of the lens unit ([0168] coating layer coats lens); and
a water-repellent layer ([0178] water repellent layer), configured to cover a surface portion of the intermediate layer ([0178] water repellent layer formed over antireflection layer), comprising a base layer ([0178] base layer can be formed from a fluorine-containing silane compound) and an ultraviolet (UV) absorber ([0169] for each of the coating layers an ultraviolet light absorber may be present) disposed in the base layer.
Kojima fails to teach the base layer comprises a fluorocarbon component, the UV absorber includes inorganic particles, and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer. However, Hebrink teaches a UV protective film (Figure 10 ultra-violet mirror film 10) with a base layer comprising a fluorocarbon component ([0070] optical layers comprised of fluoropolymers including perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFAs), ethylene-tetrafluoroethlene (ETFE), and vinylidene fluoride (THV) which are water repellent polymers), the UV absorber includes inorganic particles ([0076] zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles), and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer ([0067], [0071] optical layer can incorporate a UV absorber dispersed in the fluoropolymer composing the base layer). Hebrink further teaches using a fluoropolymer in a UV absorbing layer as it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time ([0066]) and inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UV absorber and base layer taught by Kojima include a fluorocarbon base layer and inorganic particles as taught by Hebrink in order to provide a UV absorbing layer that it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time (Hebrink [0066]) and using inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation (Hebrink [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima fails to teach the inorganic particles include at least one selected from a group consisting of cerium dioxide (CeO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), and tungsten trioxide (WO3). However, Hebrink teaches the inorganic particles include at least one selected from a group consisting of cerium dioxide (CeO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), titanium dioxide (TiO2), and tungsten trioxide (WO3) ([0071] titanium oxide and zinc oxide). Hebrink further teaches titanium oxide and zinc oxide are transparent to visible light and absorb UV radiation to minimize UV degradation ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inorganic UV absorbers taught by the combination of Kojima and Hebrink be titanium oxide or zinc oxide due to their transparency to visible light and ability to absorb UV radiation and minimize UV degradation (Hebrink [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima fails to teach the nano-sized inorganic particle has a diameter of 50 nm or less. However, Hebrink teaches the nano-sized inorganic particle has a diameter of 50 nm or less ([0071] sizes of zinc oxide and titanium oxide particles range from 10 to 100 nm). Hebrink further teaches such particles in that range are transparent to visible light when incorporated as UV blocking agents ([0071]). Furthermore, it is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the diameter of the inorganic particle taught by Kojima and Sugiyama such that the diameter is between 10 and 50 nm, which overlaps the disclosed range of 50 nm or less, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and have the particles be transparent to visible light when incorporated as UV blocking agents (Hebrink [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima fails to teach a diameter of the inorganic particle is smaller than a thickness of the base layer. However, Hebrink teaches the diameter of the inorganic particle is smaller than a thickness of the base layer ([0071] sizes of zinc oxide and titanium oxide particles range from 10 to 100 nm, [0069] UV protective layer thickness of 13 μm to 380 μm). Hebrink further teaches such nano-sized particles of zinc oxide and titanium oxide transparent to visible light when incorporated as UV blocking agents ([0071]). Furthermore, having the bases layer be thicker than the diameter nanoparticles would allow for full encapsulation of nanoparticles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inorganic particles taught by Kojima and Hebrink such that the diameter of the inorganic particles is smaller than the thickness of the base layer as taught by Hebrink in order to have the particles be transparent to visible light (Hebrink [0071]) and allow for full encapsulation of the inorganic particles in the base layer.
Regarding claim 7, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima further teaches the UV absorber further includes an organic material ([0054]-[0055] listed UV absorbing compounds are organic materials).
Regarding claim 9, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima further teaches the intermediate layer ([0168] primer, hard coat, and, antireflection layer form an intermediate layer) includes at least one material layer selected from a group consisting of siloxane, silicon dioxide (SiO2), silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (Si3N4), titanium dioxide (TiO2), titanium oxynitride (TiON), and titanium nitride (TiN) ([0176] antireflection layer is formed of an inorganic oxide such as SiO2 or TiO2).
Regarding claim 10, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima further teaches the intermediate layer has a multilayer structure ([0177] antireflection layer of the intermediate layers is multilayered) comprising a first layer and a second layer, having different refractive indices, and are alternately stacked one or more times ([0177] multilayer structure with alternately low and high refractive index films).
Regarding claim 11, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima further teaches a portion of the UV absorber is in contact with the intermediate layer ([0178] and [0169] since ultraviolet light absorber is dispersed in water repellent layer formed over the antireflection layer a portion of the ultraviolet light absorber will be in contact with the antireflection layer).
Regarding claim 13, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima further teaches a UV absorbing layer ([0169] for each of the coating layers an ultraviolet light absorber may be present) disposed between either one or both of the water-repellent layer and the intermediate layer ([0177] antireflection layer disposed between water repellent layer and hard coat), and the lens unit and the intermediate layer ([0171] primer layer and [0172] hard coat layer are disposed between lens and antireflection layer).
Regarding claim 15, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Kojima fails to teach the UV absorbing layer includes an inorganic material. However, Hebrink teaches the UV absorbing layer includes an inorganic material ([0076] zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles). Hebrink further teaches inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UV absorber taught by Kojima include inorganic particles as taught by Hebrink in order to provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimizes UV degradation (Hebrink [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Kojima further teaches UV absorber is disposed to contact the UV absorbing layer ([0178] water repellent layer with ultraviolet absorber is formed over antireflection layer and since antireflection layer can have an ultraviolet light absorber naturally the ultraviolet light absorbers from the two layers will be in contact).
Regarding claim 18, Kojima teaches a lens assembly (Claim 5, [0166]), comprising:
one or more lenses (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]), wherein at least one lens among the one or more lenses includes
a lens unit (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]),
an intermediate layer ([0168] any one of primer, hard coat, and, antireflection layer form an intermediate layer) configured to cover a surface portion of the lens unit ([0168] coating layer coats lens); and
a water-repellent layer ([0178] water repellent layer), configured to cover a surface portion of the intermediate layer ([0178] water repellent layer formed over antireflection layer), comprising a base layer ([0178] base layer can be formed from a fluorine-containing silane compound) and an ultraviolet (UV) absorber ([0169] for each of the coating layers an ultraviolet light absorber may be present) disposed in the base layer.
Kojima fails to teach the base layer comprises a fluorocarbon component, the UV absorber includes inorganic particles, and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer. However, Hebrink teaches a UV protective film (Figure 10 ultra-violet mirror film 10) with a base layer comprising a fluorocarbon component ([0070] optical layers comprised of fluoropolymers including perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFAs), ethylene-tetrafluoroethlene (ETFE), and vinylidene fluoride (THV) which are water repellent polymers), the UV absorber includes inorganic particles ([0076] zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles), and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer ([0067], [0071] optical layer can incorporate a UV absorber dispersed in the fluoropolymer composing the base layer). Hebrink further teaches using a fluoropolymer in a UV absorbing layer as it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time ([0066]) and inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UV absorber and base layer taught by Kojima include a fluorocarbon base layer and inorganic particles as taught by Hebrink in order to provide a UV absorbing layer that it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time (Hebrink [0066]) and using inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation (Hebrink [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 18. Kojima further teaches the at least one lens is disposed on an outermost side of the lens assembly in an optical axis direction (Claim 5 a lens substrate [0166] the lens assembly has a single lens therefore the single lens is on an outermost side of the lens assembly).
Claims 8, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017218 – cited by Applicant) in view of Hebrink (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0003904) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0145029 – hereinafter referred to as “Sugiyama”).
Regarding claim 8, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach the inorganic particles in the UV absorber have an area ratio of 10% or less to a unit area of the water-repellent layer. However, Sugiyama teaches an UV absorbing laminate (Abstract) and that the inorganic particles should comprise 10% mass or greater in the UV absorbing layer ([0058]). Optimizing the area ratio of the UV absorber is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sugiyama teaches mass percent of the UV absorber which would be related to the area ratio of UV absorber as a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this instance balance transparency with ultraviolet-absorbing properties. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the mass ratio and therefore area ratio of the inorganic particles and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the inorganic particles in UV absorber taught by Kojima and Hebrink have an area ratio of less than 10% the area of the water repellent layer since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Kojima teach a lens assembly (Claim 5, [0166]) comprising one or more lenses (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]), wherein at least one lens among the one or more lenses comprises the lens of claim 13 (see 103 rejection in view of Kojima and Hebrink of claim 13 above). Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach a mobile electronic device with a display unit disposed on the lens assembly. However, Sugiyama teaches mobile electronic device ([0101] smartphone) with a display unit disposed on the lens assembly ([0101] use of ultraviolet-absorbing coating in smartphones and camera lenses, front facing cameras covered by the display are commonplace in smartphones). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the lens taught by Kojima and Hebrink be disposed under the display of a smartphone as taught by Sugiyama in order to provide a front facing camera.
Regarding claim 20, Kojima teaches a lens assembly (Claim 5, [0166]), comprising one or more lenses (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]), wherein at least one lens among the one or more lenses includes
a lens unit (Claim 5 a lens substrate, [0166]),
an intermediate layer ([0168] any one of primer, hard coat, and, antireflection layer form an intermediate layer) configured to cover a surface portion of the lens unit ([0168] coating layer coats lens); and
a water-repellent layer ([0178] water repellent layer), configured to cover a surface portion of the intermediate layer ([0178] water repellent layer formed over antireflection layer), comprising a base layer ([0178] base layer can be formed from a fluorine-containing silane compound) and an ultraviolet (UV) absorber ([0169] for each of the coating layers an ultraviolet light absorber may be present) disposed in the base layer.
Kojima fails to teach the base layer comprises a fluorocarbon component, the UV absorber includes inorganic particles, and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer. However, Hebrink teaches a UV protective film (Figure 10 ultra-violet mirror film 10) with a base layer comprising a fluorocarbon component ([0070] optical layers comprised of fluoropolymers including perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFAs), ethylene-tetrafluoroethlene (ETFE), and vinylidene fluoride (THV) which are water repellent polymers), the UV absorber includes inorganic particles ([0076] zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles), and wherein the inorganic particles are dispersed within the base layer such that the inorganic particles are in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer ([0067], [0071] optical layer can incorporate a UV absorber dispersed in the fluoropolymer composing the base layer). Hebrink further teaches using a fluoropolymer in a UV absorbing layer as it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time ([0066]) and inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UV absorber and base layer taught by Kojima include a fluorocarbon base layer and inorganic particles as taught by Hebrink in order to provide a UV absorbing layer that it is able to withstand UV radiation for an extended period of time (Hebrink [0066]) and using inorganic UV absorbing particles provide a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimize UV degradation (Hebrink [0071]).
Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach a mobile electronic device with a display unit. However, Sugiyama teaches mobile electronic device ([0101] smartphone) with a display unit ([0101] use of ultraviolet-absorbing coating in smartphones and camera lenses, smartphones have displays). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the lens taught by Kojima and Hebrink be a smartphone with a display as taught by Sugiyama in order to provide a camera for the smartphone.
Regarding claim 21, Kojima, Hebrink, and Sugiyama teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Kojima further teaches the at least one lens is disposed on an outermost side of the lens assembly in the optical axis direction (Claim 5 a lens substrate [0166] the lens assembly has a single lens therefore the single lens is on an outermost side of the lens assembly).
Regarding claim 22, Kojima, Hebrink, and Sugiyama teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach the lens assembly is covered by the display unit. However, Sugiyama teaches mobile electronic device ([0101] smartphone) with a display unit disposed on the lens assembly ([0101] use of ultraviolet-absorbing coating in smartphones, which have displays, and camera lenses; front facing cameras covered by the display are commonplace in smartphones). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have the lens taught by Kojima and Hebrink be disposed under the display of a smartphone as taught by Sugiyama in order to provide a front facing camera.
Regarding claim 23, Kojima, Hebrink, and Sugiyama teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach the lens assembly is covered by tempered glass. However, Sugiyama teaches a smartphone ([0101]) which have displays. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In this instance tempered glass is a well-known and common material for smart phone displays due to strength of tempered glass which prevents breaking and disposing the lens under tempered glass would further protect the lens and provide a front facing camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lens assembly taught by the combination of Kojima, Hebrink, and Sugiyama be disposed under tempered glass since tempered glass is well-known and commonly used material for smartphone displays to its strength which prevents breakage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017218) in view of Hebrink (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0003904) as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Kawamura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0003424).
Regarding claim 12, Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach all of the UV absorber is in contact with the intermediate layer. However, Kawamura teaches a UV absorbing layer on a lens ([0066]) where all of the UV absorber is in contact with the intermediate layer (Figure 1 showing all particles in contact with a substrate, [0066] ultraviolet-absorbing metal oxides are bonded to the polymer compound of the substrate). Kawamura further teaches a layer of bonded UV absorbers improves light stability and processability ([0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have all of the UV absorber taught by Kojima and Hebrink be in contact with the intermediate layer as taught by Kawamura in order to improve light stability and processability (Kawamura [0066]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017218) in view of Hebrink (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0003904) as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Naito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0279088 – hereinafter referred to as “Naito”).
Regarding claim 14, , Kojima and Hebrink teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Kojima and Hebrink fail to teach a thickness of the UV absorbing layer is smaller than a thickness of the water-repellent layer. However, Naito teaches an optical member with a UV absorbing layer (Figure 1) where the thickness of the UV absorbing layer is smaller than a thickness of the water-repellent layer ([0108]-[0109] and [0122] thickness of inner primer layer is less than the thickness of the outer layer). Naito further teaches that having the UV absorbing layer be too thick would impair surface smoothness and cause optical defects ([0109]). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UV absorbing layer taught by Kojima and Hebrink be less than the thickness of the water-repellent layer as taught by Naito in order to prevent surface roughness and optical defects (Naito [0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872