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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988).
The prior Office Action included a copy of an English translation of CN 113031119 A together with the original reference having the drawings. In addition, an English translation of WO 2019/188970 A1 together with the original reference that contained the tables was provided. Both references were cited in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988).
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses a lens (Paragraph 73) comprising: a lens unit (“plastic lens base material”) having a refractive power (Paragraph 73); and a first coating layer and a second coating layer formed on either one or both of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the lens unit in an optical axis direction of the lens unit (Paragraphs 73, 74, see Table 1), wherein a first refractive index of the first coating layer (“high refractive index layer”) is greater than a second refractive index of the second coating layer (“low refractive index layer”) (Paragraphs 54, 55, 73), and the following conditional expressions are satisfied: 0.2000 ≤ T1sum/T2sum ≤ 0.3000 0.1900 < T1sum/(T1sum+T2sum) < 0.2100 where T1 sum is a total thickness of the first coating layer (Table 1 – ZrO2), and T2sum is a total thickness of the second coating layer (Table 1 – SiO2).
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first refractive index is greater than a refractive index of the lens unit (Paragraphs 54, 73 – “range of 1.60 to 2.40”).
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto discloses wherein the second refractive index is smaller than a refractive index of the lens unit (Paragraphs 54, 73 – “range of 1.37 to 1.59”).
Regarding claim 4, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first refractive index is in a range of 2.0 to 2.7 (Paragraph 54 – “range of 1.60 to 2.40”).
Regarding claim 5, Miyamoto discloses wherein the second refractive index is in a range of 1.01 to 1.50 (Paragraph 54 – “range of 1.37 to 1.59”).
Regarding claim 6, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer is made of a material comprising any one or any combination of any two or more of TiO2, Ti3O5, and Si3N4 (Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 7, Miyamoto discloses wherein the second coating layer is made of a material comprising either one or both of SiO2 and Al2O3 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of TiO2, and the second coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of SiO2 (Paragraphs 55, 58-60, 62).
Regarding claim 11, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of TiO2, and the second coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of SiO2 and a plurality of coating layers made Al2O3 (Paragraphs 55, 58-61).
Regarding claim 12, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers (Paragraphs 58-60, Table 1), and the second coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers alternately stacked with the coating layers of the first coating layer in the optical axis direction of the lens unit (Paragraphs 58-60, 73, Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Miyamoto discloses wherein the coating layers of the first coating layer comprise coating layers having at least two different thicknesses (Table 1), and the coating layers of the second coating layer comprise coating layers having at least two different thicknesses (Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Miyamoto discloses wherein a total number of the coating layers of the first coating layer and the coating layers of the second coating layer is in a range of 10 to 30 coating layers (Paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 15, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer and the second coating layer are alternately disposed in the optical axis direction of the lens unit (Paragraph 73, Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Miyamoto discloses a lens module comprising the lens of claim 1 (Paragraphs 3, 73).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988) in view of Guillain et al. (WO 2022/268795 A1), “Guillain”.
Regarding claim 9, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers, and the second coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of SiO2. (Paragraphs 55, 58-60, 62). Miyamoto discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify made of Ti3O5. In the same field of endeavor, Guillain discloses Ti3O5 (Pg. 7, Line 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens of Miyamoto with Ti3O5 of Guillain for the purpose of providing antireflection properties (Pg. 3, Lines 4-12).
Claims 10 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988) in view of Tsai et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0196882), hereinafter “Tsai”.
Regarding claim 10, Miyamoto discloses wherein the first coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers, and the second coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers made of SiO2. (Paragraphs 55, 58-60, 62). Miyamoto discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify made of Si3N4. In the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses made of Si3N4 (Paragraph 95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens of Miyamoto with made of Si3N4, of Tsai for the purpose of providing an antireflective properties (Paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 20, Miyamoto discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a rear lens group disposed on an image side of the lens. In the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses further comprising a rear lens group (L2, L3, L4) disposed on an image side of the lens (L1) (Paragraph 108). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyamoto with further comprising a rear lens group disposed on an image side of the lens of Tsai for the purpose of providing an optical lens assembly and an imaging apparatus for preventing reflection (Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 21, Miyamoto and Tsai teach the lens module set forth above for claim 20, Tsai further discloses wherein the rear lens group comprises one or more plastic lenses (Paragraphs 100, 108). It is known in the art for a lens material to be either glass or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens module of Miyamoto with the teachings of Tsai for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 20. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, Miyamoto discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a front lens group disposed on an object side of the lens. In the same field of endeavor, Tsai discloses further comprising a front lens group (L1, L2, L3) disposed on an object side of the lens (L4) (Paragraph 108). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyamoto with further comprising a front lens group disposed on an object side of the lens of Tsai for the purpose of providing an optical lens assembly and an imaging apparatus for preventing reflection (Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 23, Miyamoto and Tsai teach the lens module set forth above for claim 22, Tsai further discloses wherein the front lens group comprises one or more glass lenses (Paragraphs 100, 108). It is known in the art for a lens material to be either glass or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens module of Miyamoto with the teachings of Tsai for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 22. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/1/2026
Prosecution Insights