DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant claims parameters which must be “about” certain values (e.g. “less than about 500 nm,” “greater than about 100 g/in,” “less than about 10 nm,” and “less than about 100 µrad”). However, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In each instance, it is unclear what values are required. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret such that each instance of “about” was omitted.
Claims 17-21 & 27-30 are similarly rejected.
Claims 17-26 & 28-35 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claims 16 and 27, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant claims “mean displacement surface roughness.” While “mean surface roughness” or “average surface roughness” are recognized as terms of art, it is unclear what “displacement” is intended to refer to. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret such that the claim was to read “mean
Claims 21 & 29 are similarly rejected.
Claims 17-26 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 16-25 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20160216427 A1) in view of Masakatsu et al. (JP 2020164624 A).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson discloses an optical lens (Fig. 2, 200) comprising:
a lens substrate (Fig. 2, inward facing surfaces of layers 220) having opposed first and second major surfaces (Fig. 2, inward facing surfaces of top and bottom layers 220, respectively), at least one of the first and second major surfaces being curved ([0004], “in roll form”);
an optical film (Fig. 2, 210) comprising a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers numbering at least 10 in total ([0019], 275 alternating layers of coPEN and PC:coPET), each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (Table 1, Comp. Ex. C2); and
a bonding film (Fig. 2, layers 220) comprising a bonding layer ([0019], top layer 220) having a composition other than a cyclic olefin polymer and other than a cyclic olefin copolymer ([0019], PC:coPET) and having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.6 ([0016], 1.57), the bonding film disposed on, and bonding the optical film to, the first major surface (Fig. 2) and causing an average peel force to separate the optical film from the lens substrate to be greater than about 100 g/in ([0019], 120 g/in).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lens substrate comprises a cyclic olefin copolymer.
However, Masakatsu teaches a layered optical device ([0059]), and discloses wherein a lens substrate comprises a cyclic olefin copolymer ([0002], [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Johnson and Masakatsu such that the lens substrate was to comprise a cyclic olefin copolymer, motivated by cyclic olefin copolymers having “excellent optical properties and mechanical properties” ([0005]).
Modified Johnson fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one outermost major surface of the optical film has a mean displacement surface roughness Sa of less than about 10 nm and a slope magnitude error of less than about 100 µrad.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface roughness and/or slope magnitude errors of modified Johnson such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to minimize surface roughness and slope magnitude errors, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 17, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the slope magnitude error is determined from a surface profile filtered with a bandpass Fourier filter having band edge wavelengths of W1 and W2, 0.1 mm ≤ W1 ≤ 0.3 mm, 2W1 ≤ W2 ≤ 10 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 18, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the slope magnitude error is determined from a surface profile filtered with a bandpass Fourier filter having band edge wavelengths of about 0.1 mm and about 0.3 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 19, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the slope magnitude error is determined from a surface profile filtered with a bandpass Fourier filter having band edge wavelengths of about 0.3 mm and about 1 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 20, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the slope magnitude error is determined from a surface profile filtered with a bandpass Fourier filter having band edge wavelengths of about 0.1 mm and about 1 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 21, modified Johnson discloses wherein the slope magnitude error is less than about 60 µrad and the mean displacement surface roughness Sa is less than about 6 nm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface roughness and/or slope magnitude errors of modified Johnson such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to minimize surface roughness and slope magnitude errors, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 22, modified Johnson discloses wherein the optical film comprises a first outermost layer facing the bonding layer (Johnson - [0019] & Fig. 2, topmost layer of PC:coPET within 210), the first outermost layer comprising polycarbonate ([0016], [0019]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Johnson discloses wherein the bonding film comprises an olefin substrate (rejection of claim 1; Masakatsu - [0002], [0005]), the bonding layer disposed on, and substantially coextensive with, the olefin substrate (Johnson - Fig. 2), the bonding layer facing the optical film (Johnson - Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, modified Johnson discloses wherein the bonding layer comprises a solvent-deposited polymer ([0057]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Johnson discloses wherein the bonding layer has a glass transition temperature no greater than 25° C.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the glass transition temperature such that it was no greater than 25° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to lower the glass transition temperature, motivated by helping maintain the integrity of the device.
Regarding claim 27, Johnson discloses an optical lens (Fig. 2, 200) comprising:
a lens substrate (Fig. 2, inward facing surfaces of layers 220) having opposed first and second major surfaces (Fig. 2, inward facing surfaces of top and bottom layers 220, respectively), at least one of the first and second major surfaces being curved ([0004], “in roll form”);
an optical film (Fig. 2, 210) comprising a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers numbering at least 10 in total ([0019], 275 alternating layers of coPEN and PC:coPET), each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (Table 1, Comp. Ex. C2); and
a bonding film (Fig. 2, layers 220) comprising a bonding layer ([0019], top layer 220) having a composition other than a cyclic olefin polymer and other than a cyclic olefin copolymer ([0019], PC:coPET) and having a refractive index in a range of 1.45 to 1.6 ([0016], 1.57), the bonding film disposed on, and bonding the optical film to, the first major surface (Fig. 2) and causing an average peel force to separate the optical film from the lens substrate to be greater than about 100 g/in ([0019], 120 g/in).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lens substrate comprises a cyclic olefin copolymer.
However, Masakatsu teaches a layered optical device ([0059]), and discloses wherein a lens substrate comprises a cyclic olefin copolymer ([0002], [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Johnson and Masakatsu such that the lens substrate was to comprise a cyclic olefin copolymer, motivated by cyclic olefin copolymers having “excellent optical properties and mechanical properties” ([0005]).
Modified Johnson fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one outermost major surface of the optical film has a mean displacement surface roughness Sa of less than about 10 nm and a slope magnitude error of less than about 100 µrad.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 28, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein W1 is about 0.1 mm, W2 and W3 are each about 0.3 mm, and W4 is about 1 mm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface profile such that the expressions were satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the surface, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 29, modified Johnson discloses wherein the at least one outermost major surface of the optical film has a mean displacement surface roughness Sa of less than about 10 nm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the surface roughness of modified Johnson such that the expression was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to minimize surface roughness, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 30, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein at least one of the lower and higher spatial frequency slope magnitude errors is less than about 60 µrad.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the slope magnitude errors of modified Johnson such that the expression was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to minimize slope magnitude errors, motivated by increasing optical performance of the device.
Regarding claim 31, modified Johnson discloses wherein the optical film comprises a first outermost layer facing the bonding layer (Johnson - [0019] & Fig. 2, topmost layer of PC:coPET within 210), the first outermost layer comprising polycarbonate ([0016], [0019]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Johnson discloses wherein the bonding film comprises an olefin substrate (rejection of claim 1; Masakatsu - [0002], [0005]), the bonding layer disposed on, and substantially coextensive with, the olefin substrate (Johnson - Fig. 2), the bonding layer facing the optical film (Johnson - Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 33, modified Johnson discloses wherein the bonding layer comprises a solvent-deposited polymer ([0057]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the bonding layer has a glass transition temperature no greater than 25° C.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as materials, index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the glass transition temperature such that it was no greater than 25° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to lower the glass transition temperature, motivated by helping maintain the integrity of the device.
7. Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Masakatsu, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 20190064549 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 35, modified Johnson fails to disclose wherein the bonding layer comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate, a styrene butadiene rubber, or a (meth)acrylate comprising an acrylate group having a linear alkyl chain comprising at least 4 carbons.
However, Brown teaches a multilayer optical device, and discloses wherein a bonding layer comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate ([0062])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Johnson and Brown such that the bonding layer was to comprise an ethylene vinyl acetate, motivated by improving adhesion.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872