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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 4, and 13-14 have been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 15-18, and 20 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 15-23 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 section (a) that Hebrink’s nanoparticles are in thick optical film layers for solar light concentrator applications and not for lens coatings, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Hebrink is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, although Hebrink does teach the use of a UV mirror film in solar concentration applications (Figure 9), Hebrink also teaches the use of the film in a dental filling curing device (Figure 10) and more pertinently in a face shield (Figure 12) which is analogous art to lenses since both serve as covering for the eyes. Although Hebrink teaches a UV absorber layer thickness of 13 to 380 micrometers ([0069]), layer thickness is not specifically claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 section (b) that Hebrink fluoropolymers are different from Kojima’s fluorine containing silane, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Kojima’s “fluorine containing silane compound ([0178]) forms a thin water-repellent surface coating through silane-surface bonding chemistry” while Hebrink’s “fluoropolymers are bulk polymers forming thick optical layers.” However, the fluoropolymers taught by Hebrink ([0070] perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFAs), ethylene-tetrafluoroethlene (ETFE), and vinylidene fluoride (THV)) are water repellent polymers which would function as a water-repellant layer. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute the compounds used by Kojima for those used by Hebrink in an effort to improve performance and better withstand UV radiation (Hebrink [0066]). In addition, since Hebrink teaches zinc oxide or titanium oxide nanoparticles may be included the fluorocarbon containing layer ([0070]-[0071]) these particles would naturally have to be in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component of the base layer. Thus, Hebrink teaches “inorganic particles dispersed with this base layer in direct contact with the fluorocarbon component.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9 section (c) that there is no reason to combine Kojima and Hebrink, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hebrink provides that having inorganic UV absorbing particles in an optical coating provides a transparent ultraviolet absorbing layer that minimizes UV degradation. Hebrink further teaches using organic UV absorbers ([0069]), such as those taught by Kojima, with the inorganic UV absorbing particles. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hebrink as a way to improve the performance of the UV absorber taught by Kojima.
Applicant also states that there is no motivation to combine since Kojima is directed to UV absorption and visible light transmittance while Hebrink is directed to UV reflection and visible light transmittance. However, as previously stated Hebrink teaches a UV absorbing layer taught can be used in a face shield which is analogous art to the optical coating taught by Kojima that can be used in lenses, goggles, waveguides, front glass of cars or helmets, and transparent substrates (Kojima [0132]). The embodiment of Hebrink that is a UV solar collimator (Figure 9) is not relied upon and is merely one example of use that Hebrink provides.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and Examiner maintains the use of Kojima in view of Hebrink in the grounds of rejection for claims 1, 18, and 20.
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, 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”), and in further view of Naito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0279088 – hereinafter referred to as “Naito”).
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;
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).
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 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]).
Regarding claim 3, Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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 15, Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. 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, Hebrink, and Naito teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. 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, and
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).
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 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]).
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) in view of Hebrink (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0003904) and Naito (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0279088) 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, Hebrink, and Naito teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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 1 (see 103 rejection in view of Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito of claim 1 above). Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito 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,
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).
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 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]).
Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Naito, 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, Naito, and Sugiyama teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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 ,Hebrink, and Naito 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, Naito, and Sugiyama teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Naito, 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) and Naito (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0279088) as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Kawamura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0003424).
Regarding claim 12, Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Kojima, Hebrink, and Naito 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, Hebrink, and Naito be in contact with the intermediate layer as taught by Kawamura in order to improve light stability and processability (Kawamura [0066]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights