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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11, 16-20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (2013/0064057).
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki discloses a lens (Figure 1, 10, objective lens) comprising: an optical layer containing a resin ([0048] teaches 10, objective lens, is made of a synthetic resin); a member (at least diffraction structure at 11, entrance surface; [0052]); and an antireflection layer (121, anti-reflection coat), wherein the antireflection layer is provided at an outermost surface, in an optical axis direction, of the lens (Figure 1 depicts 121, anti-reflection coat, is provided at 12, emission surface, which is an outermost surface), and a transmittance of the antireflection layer has a maximal value (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm) and a minimal value (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm) in order from a short wavelength side of a wavelength of light (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 2, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 1, wherein a difference between the maximal value and the minimal value is 35% or more (at least Figure 6 depicts the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm is 100% and the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm is about 58%, thus the difference is more than 35%).
Regarding claim 3, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 1, wherein the maximal value is equal to or more than 1.3 times the minimal value (at least Figure 6 depicts the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm is 100% and the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm is about 58%, thus maximum value is more than 1.3 times the minimal value).
Regarding claim 4, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 1, wherein a wavelength band of light is defined as a first wavelength band (Figure 6, wavelength band of 350 nm to 450 nm), a second wavelength band that does not overlap with the first wavelength band (Figure 6, wavelength band of 650 nm to 700 nm), and a third wavelength band between the first wavelength band and the second wavelength band (Figure 6, wavelength band of 450 nm to 650 nm), and the transmittance of the antireflection layer has the minimal value in the third wavelength band (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm) and has the maximal value in the first wavelength band (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm).
Regarding claim 5, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein a difference between the maximal value and the minimal value is 35% or more (at least Figure 6 depicts the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm is 100% and the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm is about 58%, thus the difference is more than 35%).
Regarding claim 6, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein the first wavelength band partially overlaps with an ultraviolet region (Figure 6, wavelength band of 350 nm to 450 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein the transmittance of the antireflection layer has a peak value in the second wavelength band (Figure 6, wavelength band of 650 nm to 700 nm includes a peak at 680 nm).
Regarding claim 8, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein a transmittance of the optical layer has a minimal value in the third wavelength band (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 8, wherein the transmittance of the optical layer has a maximal value at a wavelength in the third wavelength band which is nearer to the first wavelength band than a wavelength at which the transmittance of the optical layer has the minimal value is (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 9, wherein the transmittance of the optical layer has a peak value in the second wavelength band (Figure 6, wavelength band of 650 nm to 700 nm includes a peak at 680 nm).
Regarding claim 11, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein the second wavelength band is at a longer wavelength side than the first wavelength band (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, wherein the first wavelength band, the second wavelength band, and the third wavelength band are included in a range of 350 nm or more (Figure 6, wavelength band of 350 nm to 450 nm, wavelength band of 650 nm to 700 nm, wavelength band of 450 nm to 650 nm, respectively).
Regarding claim 17, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 16, wherein the first wavelength band is in a range of 350 nm or more and less than 450 nm (Figure 6, wavelength band of 350 nm to 450 nm).
Regarding claim 18, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 16, wherein the third wavelength band is in a range of 450 nm or more and less than 650 nm (Figure 6, wavelength band of 450 nm to 650 nm).
Regarding claim 19, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 16, wherein the second wavelength band is in a range of 650 nm or more and less than 1650 nm (Figure 6, wavelength band of 650 nm to 700 nm).
Regarding claim 20, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 1, wherein a diffraction grating is formed on the optical layer (diffraction structure at 11, entrance surface; [0052]).
Regarding claim 25, Yamasaki discloses a lens (Figure 1, 10, objective lens) comprising: an optical layer containing a resin ([0048] teaches 10, objective lens, is made of a synthetic resin); a member (at least diffraction structure at 11, entrance surface; [0052]); and an antireflection layer (121, anti-reflection coat), wherein the antireflection layer is provided at an outermost surface, in an optical axis direction, of the lens (Figure 1 depicts 121, anti-reflection coat, is provided at 12, emission surface, which is an outermost surface), a transmittance of the lens has a first maximal value on a shorter wavelength side (at least Figure 6, transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm), the transmittance of the lens has a second maximal value on a longer wavelength side (transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 680 nm), the transmittance of the lens has a minimal value between the first maximal value and the second maximal value (transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm), and in a graph showing wavelength dependence of a transmittance of light, an average value of absolute values of slopes of tangent lines of the graph on a longer wavelength side with respect to a wavelength at which the second maximal value is obtained is smaller than an average value of absolute values of slopes of tangent lines of the graph from the second maximal value to the minimal value (Figure 6 depicts the slope of 40 deg incident angle is less from wavelength 680 nm to 700 nm than from 680 nm to 530 nm).
Regarding claim 26, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 25, wherein a difference between the first maximal value and the minimal value is 20% or more (at least Figure 6 depicts the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 385 nm is 100% and the transmittance of 40 deg incident angle at 530 nm is about 58%, thus the difference is more than 20%).
Regarding claim 27, Yamasaki discloses a lens device comprising: the lens according to claim 1 ([0049]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakefield et al. (2013/0216807).
Regarding claim 24, Wakefield discloses a lens (at least [0079] teaches a polycarbonate lens) comprising: an optical layer containing a resin (at least [0079] teaches a polycarbonate lens; Examiner notes polycarbonate is a known resin); a member ([0079] teaches a silicone hardcoat); and an antireflection layer ([0079] teaches an optical coating, which is an anti-reflection layer), wherein the antireflection layer is provided at an outermost surface, in an optical axis direction, of the lens ([0079] teaches the optical coating is provided at an outermost surface of the polycarbonate substrate), a minimal value of a transmittance of the antireflection layer is on a shorter wavelength side with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer (Figure 5 depicts at least a minimal value of transmittance of the solid line at 80% at 400 nm, while at least a minimal value of transmittance of the dashed line at 87% at 490 nm), and a difference between the minimal value of the transmittance of the antireflection layer and the minimal value of the transmittance of the optical layer is 50 nm or more and 150 nm or less (the difference is 90 nm which falls within the claimed range).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2013/0064057) in view of Miyakawa (7,901,787, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the first wavelength band is a photosensitive wavelength band of a photopolymerization initiator contained in the resin of the optical layer. Yamasaki and Miyakawa are related because both teach a lens.
Miyakawa teaches a lens wherein the first wavelength band is a photosensitive wavelength band of a photopolymerization initiator contained in the resin of the optical layer (at least col 17 lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamasaki to incorporate the teachings of Miyakawa and provide wherein the first wavelength band is a photosensitive wavelength band of a photopolymerization initiator contained in the resin of the optical layer. Doing so would allow for the resin to be cured in a short period of time, thereby obtaining a resin layer with excellent UV absorption capacity.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2013/0064057) in view of Wakefield et al. (2013/0216807).
Regarding claim 13, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the third wavelength band is a wavelength band between a value on a longer wavelength side by 50 nm with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer and a value on a shorter wavelength side by 150 nm with respect to the minimal value of the transmittance of the optical layer. Yamasaki and Wakefield are related because both teach a lens.
Wakefield teaches a lens wherein the third wavelength band is a wavelength band between a value on a longer wavelength side by 50 nm with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer and a value on a shorter wavelength side by 150 nm with respect to the minimal value of the transmittance of the optical layer (Figure 5 depicts at least a minimal value of transmittance of the solid line at 80% at 400 nm, while at least a minimal value of transmittance of the dashed line at 87% at 490 nm, thus falling within 150 nm on the shorter wavelength side).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamasaki to incorporate the teachings of Wakefield and provide wherein the third wavelength band is a wavelength band between a value on a longer wavelength side by 50 nm with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer and a value on a shorter wavelength side by 150 nm with respect to the minimal value of the transmittance of the optical layer. Doing so would allow for improved reduction in reflection at the desired wavelength.
Regarding claim 14, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the minimal value of the transmittance of the antireflection layer is on a shorter wavelength side with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer in terms of a thickness of 10 μm. Yamasaki and Wakefield are related because both teach a lens.
Wakefield teaches a lens wherein the minimal value of the transmittance of the antireflection layer is on a shorter wavelength side with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer (Figure 5 depicts at least a minimal value of transmittance of the solid line at 80% at 400 nm, while at least a minimal value of transmittance of the dashed line at 87% at 490 nm, thus falling within 150 nm on the shorter wavelength side).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamasaki to incorporate the teachings of Wakefield and provide wherein the minimal value of the transmittance of the antireflection layer is on a shorter wavelength side with respect to a minimal value of a transmittance of the optical layer. Doing so would allow for improved reduction in reflection at the desired wavelength.
The modified Yamaksai fails to explicitly teach the claimed transmittances in terms of a thickness of 10 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the values to be in terms of a thickness of 10 μm, 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). Doing so would allow for a durable layer free from brittleness and cracking while exhibiting improved antireflection.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 14, wherein a difference between the minimal value of the transmittance of the antireflection layer and the minimal value of the transmittance of the optical layer in terms of a thickness of 10 μm is 50 nm or more and 150 nm or less (Wakefield: Figure 5 depicts at least a minimal value of transmittance of the solid line at 80% at 400 nm, while at least a minimal value of transmittance of the dashed line at 87% at 490 nm, thus falling at 90 nm).
The modified Yamaksai fails to explicitly teach the claimed transmittances in terms of a thickness of 10 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the values to be in terms of a thickness of 10 μm, 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). Doing so would allow for a durable layer free from brittleness and cracking while exhibiting improved antireflection.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2013/0064057) in view of Karasawa (2013/0077156).
Regarding claim 21, Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the member includes a first member and a second member, and the optical layer includes a first layer and a second layer. Yamasaki and Karasawa are related because both teach a lens.
Karasawa teaches a lens wherein the member includes a first member (at least Figure 2, 2, glass substrate) and a second member (3, glass substrate), and the optical layer includes a first layer (8, adhesive) and a second layer (10, adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamasaki to incorporate the teachings of Karasawa and provide wherein the member includes a first member and a second member, and the optical layer includes a first layer and a second layer. Doing so would allow for improved durability to the lens.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 21, wherein the first member, the first layer, the second layer, and the second member are laminated in this order (Karasawa: at least Figure 2 depicts 2, glass member, 8, adhesive, 10, adhesive, and 3, glass substrate, are laminated in order), and the antireflection layer is provided on the first member at a side opposite to the first layer and on the second member at a side opposite to the second layer (Karasawa: Figure 2 depicts 5, antireflection coating, on the outer surface of 2, glass substrate, and 11, antireflection coating, on the outer surface of 3, glass substrate).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (2013/0064057) in view of Karasawa (2013/0077156), as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Miyakawa (7,901,787, of record).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Yamasaki discloses the lens according to claim 22, but fails to teach wherein a diffraction grating is formed at an interface between the first layer and the second layer. The modified Yamasaki and Miyakawa are related because each teach a lens.
Miyakawa teaches a lens wherein a diffraction grating is formed at an interface between the first layer and the second layer (at least Figure 3E, diffraction grating formed at interface between 20 and 22, resin layers; col 3 lines 48-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yamasaki to incorporate the teachings of Miyakawa and provide wherein a diffraction grating is formed at an interface between the first layer and the second layer. Doing so would allow for widening the band of usable wavelengths and furthermore simplifying the alignment between the gratings.
Conclusion
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