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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (2024/0255779) in view of Hart et al. (2017/0199307).
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses an optical element (Figure 1, right hand side element) with a lanthanide compound layer ([0036] teaches the high refractive index material may be LaTiO3, which can be an alternative to the depicted Ta2O5), comprising: an optical substrate including a first surface (HC, hard coat layer, including the top surface); the lanthanide compound layer made of lanthanide compound and being disposed on the first surface (bottom Ta2O5 layer which is disposed on the top surface of HC, hard coat layer; [0036] teaches the high refractive index material may be LaTiO3, which can be an alternative to the depicted Ta2O5), and the lanthanide compound layer including a second surface (top surface of the bottom Ta2O5 layer); and an optical film stack disposed on the second surface (layers SiO2, Ta2O5, SiO2, Ta2O5, and SiO2, on the top surface of the bottom Ta2O5 layer); and a thickness of the lanthanide compound layer ranges from 5 nm to 100 nm (the bottom Ta2O5 layer is depicted to have a thickness of 32 nm).
Ding fails to teach wherein the surface of the optical film stack includes pinhole defects and particles, the pinhole defects having a size of less than 3 µm or ranging from 3 µm to 10 µm; and the thickness of the lanthanide compound layer inhibits the expansion and generation of the pinhole defects. Ding and Hart are related because both teach an optical element.
Hart teaches an optical element (Figures 3 and 4) wherein the surface of the optical film stack includes pinhole defects (Figure 3, 340, surface defect) and particles (Figure 4, 340, surface defect), the pinhole defects having a size of less than 3 µm or ranging from 3 µm to 10 µm ([0061] teaches 360, surface thickness, of 340, surface defect, is about 25 nm or more); and the thickness of the layer inhibits the expansion and generation of the pinhole defects ([0062] teaches a thickness of the anti-reflection coating is greater than the surface thickness, and the remaining 320, coated surface, is in pristine condition with no surface defects present).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ding to incorporate the teachings of Hart and provide wherein the surface of the optical film stack includes pinhole defects and particles, the pinhole defects having a size of less than 3 µm or ranging from 3 µm to 10 µm; and the thickness of the lanthanide compound layer inhibits the expansion and generation of the pinhole defects. Doing so would allow for improved resistance to damage during drop events onto hard and rough surfaces for the optical element.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ding discloses the optical element with the lanthanide compound layer as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lanthanide compound layer is made of a material selected from the group consisting of LaTiO3, LaNiO3 and LaAlO ([0036] teaches the high refractive index material may be LaTiO3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ding discloses the optical element with the lanthanide compound layer as claimed in claim 1, wherein a thickness ratio between the lanthanide compound layer and the optical film stack is 1-900:1000-9000 (the bottom Ta2O5 layer is depicted to have a thickness of 32 nm; the cumulative thickness of the subsequent layers on the top surface of the bottom Ta2O5 layer is 511 nm; thus the ratio 32:511 falls within the claimed ratio).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamiguchi (6,303,218), Nozawa (TW 201435477 A), Spencer (CA 2400157 A1), and Hayashi (JP H0695363 A) disclose relevant optical elements.
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872