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 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Examiner Suggestion
The inventive concept appears to be disclosed in the prior art of record. Applicant is encouraged to clarify what is believed to constitute the inventive concept and to incorporate additional limitations into the claims. An interview may be scheduled to discuss potential ways for clarification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
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(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0308415) [Hereinafter Yamamoto], Shibuta et al. (US 2011/0123708) [Hereinafter Shibuta], & Tatsuno et al. (US 2020/0068106) [Hereinafter Tatsuno].
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches An article, comprising:
a substrate [fig. 1, base material 2, para 20];
and a porous layer [fig. 1, porous layer 3, para 19] disposed over the substrate [fig. 1, 2],
the porous layer [fig. 1, 3] containing inorganic particles bound by an inorganic binder [para 18, “the porous layer 3 has a silicon oxide particle 4 and an inorganic binder 5.”],
wherein the inorganic particles include chain-like particles [fig. 3, para 19, “ FIG. 3 illustrates the case where silicon oxide particles 4 include chain-like silicon oxide particles”] and particles other than the chain-like particles [para 43, “the case where the silicon oxide particles 4 are chain-like silicon oxide particles will be described. The chain-like silicon oxide particles are secondary particles in which a plurality of solid silicon oxide particles which are primary particles lies in straight or curved lines.”]
wherein the particles other than the chain-like particles have an average particle diameter of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less [para 40, “When the silicon oxide particle 4 is a hollow silicon oxide particle, the average particle diameter is 15 nm or more and 100 nm or less, preferably desirably 15 nm or more and 60 nm or less.”].
Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose a volume fraction of the chain-like particles is 55% or more and 95% or less based on the inorganic particles.
However, Shibuta teaches a volume fraction of the chain-like particles is 55% or more and 95% or less based on the inorganic particles [para 7, “In a liquid dispersion medium, inorganic particle chains (A) in a volume fraction of from 0.30 to 0.84, each of the chains being composed of three or more particles with a particle diameter of from 10 to 60 nm attached to each other in a chain form.”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the chain like particles to comprise a volume fraction from 30% to 84% which overlaps the claimed invention range. MPEP 2144.05 states, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore by the chain like particles comprising the volume fraction as taught by Shibuta a layered article without pretreatment at high temperatures and excels in balance of antireflection performance and film strength can be formed.
Yamamoto/Shibuta fails to explicitly disclose wherein the porous layer has a film thickness of 1,000 nm or more and 5,000 nm or less.
However Tatsuno teaches wherein the porous layer [fig. 1, porous layer 3, para 46] has a film thickness of 1,000 nm or more and 5,000 nm or less [para 46, “The thickness of the porous layer 3 is preferably from 100 nm to 5 μm”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the porous layer to have a film thickness of 100nm to 5μm (5000nm) which includes the claimed range to ensure moisture absorption and suppression of scattering light.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1,
wherein the particles other than the chain-like particles are at least one member selected from the group consisting of
hollow particles, cocoon-shaped particles, and solid particles [Yamamoto, para 29, “Especially, the silicon oxide particles 4 preferably include hollow silicon oxide particles which are hollow particles having pores inside and having shells around the outsides of the pores”].
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 2,
wherein the particles other than the chain-like particles are the hollow particles [Yamamoto, para 29, “Especially, the silicon oxide particles 4 preferably include hollow silicon oxide particles which are hollow particles having pores inside and having shells around the outsides of the pores”].
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1,
wherein the inorganic particles include particles of at least one member selected from the group consisting of
silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, lithium fluoride, calcium fluoride, and barium fluoride [Yamamoto, para 20, “The porous layer 3 including the silicon oxide particles 4 is formed by piling a plurality of tiers of the silicon oxide particles 4 aligned on the surface of the base material 2.”].
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1,
wherein the inorganic particles are silicon oxide particles[Yamamoto, para 20, “The porous layer 3 including the silicon oxide particles 4 is formed by piling a plurality of tiers of the silicon oxide particles 4 aligned on the surface of the base material 2.”].
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 5,
wherein the inorganic binder is a silicon oxide compound [Yamamoto, para 31, “The inorganic binder 5 in the present invention is preferably a silicon oxide binder.”].
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1,
wherein a difference between a refractive index of a region of the porous layer extending from a position of half of a film thickness of the porous layer to a side of the porous layer adjacent to the substrate and
a refractive index of a region of the porous layer extending from the position of half of the film thickness of the porous layer to a side of the porous layer remote from the substrate is 0.01 or less.
Yamamoto respectively states in para 58 “The refractive index of the porous layer 3 of the present invention is preferably 1.20 or more and 1.30 or less, and more preferably 1.20 or more and 1.24 or less.” One of ordinary skill would understand the entire porous layer to carry a single refractive index, thereby the difference in the refractive index within the porous layer would be 0 which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 or less. MPEP 2144.05 states, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1,
wherein the porous layer has a refractive index of 1.15 or more and 1.30 or less [Yamamoto, para 58, “The refractive index of the porous layer 3 of the present invention is preferably 1.20 or more and 1.30 or less, and more preferably 1.20 or more and 1.24 or less.”].
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1, further comprising:
an intermediate layer disposed between the substrate and the porous layer [Yamamoto, para 62, “An intermediate layer may be provided between the base material 2 and the porous layer 3”].
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 10,
wherein the intermediate layer is a laminate of multiple inorganic compound layers
or a polymer layer having a surface with a protrusion and a recess [Yamamoto, para 62, “Preferable examples of the intermediate layer include high refractive index layers containing zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide and hafnium oxide; low refractive index layers containing silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride; aluminum oxide; and polymers.”].
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a functional layer [Yamamoto, para 61, “an antifouling layer or the like may be provided on the surface of the porous layer 3 of the present invention if needed. Examples of the antifouling layer include a fluoropolymer layer, a fluorosilane monomolecular layer and a titanium oxide particle layer.”] disposed over a surface of the porous layer [Yamamoto, fig. 1, 3] opposite to a surface adjacent to the substrate [Yamamoto, fig. 1, 2].
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 12,
wherein the functional layer is a layer containing
a fluoropolymer, a fluorosilane monolayer, or a layer containing a titanium oxide particle [Yamamoto, para 61, “an antifouling layer or the like may be provided on the surface of the porous layer 3 of the present invention if needed. Examples of the antifouling layer include a fluoropolymer layer, a fluorosilane monomolecular layer and a titanium oxide particle layer.”].
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches An optical apparatus, comprising:
a housing [Yamamoto, fig. 4, case 420, para 71];
and an optical system [Yamamoto, fig. 4, lens 403/405, para 71, “Light from a subject passes an optical system including a plurality of lenses 403, 405 and the like disposed on the optical axis of a photographic optical system in the case 420 of the lens barrel 401”] including multiple lenses [Yamamoto, fig. 4, lens 403/405] in the housing [Yamamoto, fig 4, 420],
wherein at least one of the multiple lenses is the article according to Claim 1 [Yamamoto/Shibuta teaches the article in claim 1 as detailed above in claim 1 rejection.].
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Shibuta, & Tatsuno as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, & 20 and further in view of Yamabi et al. (US 2019/0341409) [Hereinafter Yamabi].
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto/Shibuta teaches The article according to Claim 1.
Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate includes a photoelectric converter and a microlens array.
However, Yamabi teaches wherein the article further comprises a light-transmitting plate [fig. 5, light transmitting plate 4, para 83] disposed over a surface of the porous layer [fig. 5, functional film 5, para 83] opposite to a surface adjacent to the substrate [fig. 5, substrate 3, para 74].
wherein the substrate [fig. 5, substrate 3, para 74] includes a photoelectric converter [fig. 5, photoelectric conversion portion 1, para 74] and a microlens array [fig. 5, microlens array 2, para 74].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the substrate to comprise a photoelectric converter and microlens array as this is a fundamental structure of an image sensor in digital cameras, to maximize light capture and conversion efficiency, thereby enabling higher image quality. Furthermore for the device to comprise a light transmitting plate over the porous layer to control the path of light and enhance sensor performance.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno/Yamabi teaches The article according to Claim 15,
wherein a refractive index of the porous layer is lower than a refractive index of a microlens included in the microlens array [Yamabi, para 85, “A refractive index of the functional film 5 must be lower than a refractive index of the microlenses constituting the microlens array 2.”].
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno/Yamabi teaches The article according to Claim 15,
wherein a film thickness of the porous layer is two or more times larger than a height difference between a protrusion and a recess of the microlens array [Yamabi, para 102, “the film thickness of the functional film 5 is preferably twice a difference in height of the irregularities of the microlens array 2 or more and more preferably three times the difference in height or more.”].
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno/Yamabi The article according to Claim 15, further comprising:
an antireflection layer disposed between the porous layer and the microlens array [Yamabi, fig. 5, antireflection layer 11, para 83].
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno/Yamabi teaches An image pickup apparatus, comprising:
a housing[Yamamoto, fig. 4, case 420, para 71];
an optical system [Yamamoto, fig. 4, lens 403/405, para 71, “Light from a subject passes an optical system including a plurality of lenses 403, 405 and the like disposed on the optical axis of a photographic optical system in the case 420 of the lens barrel 401”] including multiple lenses [Yamamoto, fig. 4, lens 403/405] in the housing [Yamamoto, fig 4, 420];
and an image pickup element [Yamamoto, fig. 4, image capturing element 410, para 73] configured to receive light passing through the optical system [Yamamoto, para 73],
wherein the image pickup element is the article according to Claim 15 [Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno/Yamabi teaches the article of claim 15 as detailed above in claim 15 rejection.].
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Shibuta, & Tatsuno as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, & 20 and further in view of Watanabe (US 2019/0295391).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno teaches The article according to Claim 12,
wherein the functional layer [Yamamoto, antifouling layer, para 61] contains a polymer.
Yamamoto/Shibuta/Tatsuno fails to explicitly disclose wherein the functional layer contains a polymer having a zwitterionic hydrophilic group.
However Watanabe teaches wherein the functional layer [fig. 2/3, hydrophilic polymer layer 15, para 28] contains a polymer having a zwitterionic hydrophilic group [para 28].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the functional layer contains a polymer having a zwitterionic hydrophilic group to enable resistance to smudges, dust, and other contaminants to maintain image quality.
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 FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812