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 1/24/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show d (thickness of the transparent inorganic film at the tip) and h (grating height of the first diffraction grating) as described in the specification. Although the labels of d and h are present in fig. 1b the quality of the image make the details of d and h in relationship to the grating undecipherable.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected as contain the limitations of “a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating tip” of the first diffraction grating is thicker than a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating surface other than the grating tip of the first diffraction grating.
At issue is that the procedure of measuring the thickness of the inorganic film is not known other than is being “at a grating surface”. The figure and specification do not yield to one being able to determine the thickness direction. The figure below indicates only 4 different measurement direction for the thickness given the system. Examiner is taking the position for examination that the measurement direction is normal to the first grating surface (option 2 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected as depending on the rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2009/0141354 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element comprising:
a first resin portion (11) having a first diffraction grating and made of a first resin material (para. 0118; 0086);
a second resin portion (7) having a second diffraction grating formed to cover the first diffraction grating and made of a second resin material (para. 0120; 0178);
and a transparent inorganic film (6,8) formed on an optically effective surface, which is an interface between the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (para. 0174),
where a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating tip of the first diffraction grating is thicker than a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating surface other than the grating tip of the first diffraction grating (see annotated fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Thickness furthest from tip)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 5 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element, where the thickness of the transparent inorganic film is 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less (para. 0098-0103).
Regarding claim 9 Kobayashi teaches (fig. 14) an optical apparatus comprising a housing and an optical system having at least one lens arranged within the housing, where the at least one lens is the diffractive optical element according to claim 1 (para. 0215).
Regarding claim 10 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a display apparatus comprising a housing, an optical system having at least one lens arranged within the housing, and a display unit that emits light to be guided by the optical system, where the at least one lens is the diffractive optical element according to claim 1 (para. 0217).
Regarding claim 11 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 14) an imaging apparatus comprising a housing, an optical system having at least one lens arranged within the housing, and an imaging element that receives light that has passed through the optical system, where the at least one lens is the diffractive optical element according to claim 1 (para. 0215).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2009/0141354 A1)
Regarding claim 4 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element, except where the second resin material includes an episulfide-based resin. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to utilize an episulfide-based resin, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 7 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element, except where the first resin material includes a thermoplastic resin. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to utilize a thermoplastic resin, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 8 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element, where the first resin portion is formed by injection molding. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to utilize an injection molded resin, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2009/0141354 A1) in view of Murata et. al. (US 2010/0246008 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a diffractive optical element, except where the first resin portion has a grating part in which the first diffraction grating is formed and an outer peripheral part formed around a periphery of the grating part, and where the transparent inorganic film is not formed in the outer peripheral part.
Murata teaches where the first resin portion has a grating part in which the first diffraction grating is formed and an outer peripheral part formed around a periphery of the grating part, and where the transparent inorganic film is not formed in the outer peripheral part (see annotated fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the optical lens as taught by Kobayashi with the non optical structure as taught by Murata for the benefit of a lens with outer non-optical portion functional as a mounting structure.
Regarding claim 12 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element, comprising:
to form a first resin portion having a first diffraction grating and made of resin (para. 0118; 0086);
forming a transparent inorganic film on the first diffraction grating (para. 0120; 0178);
and forming a photocurable resin on the transparent inorganic film to form a second resin portion having a second diffraction grating and made of the photocurable resin (para. 0174),
where forming the transparent inorganic film forms the transparent inorganic film such that a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating tip of the first diffraction grating is thicker than a thickness of the transparent inorganic film at a grating surface other than the grating tip of the first diffraction grating (see annotated fig. 4 above in the rejection of claim 1).
Kobayashi does not teach where the first resin portion is an injection molded thermoplastic resin.
Murata teaches where the first resin portion is an injection molded thermoplastic resin (para.0115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Diffractive lens as taught by Kobayashi with the use of a first injection molded first portion as taught by Murata for the benefit of decreasing construction costs and decrease production time.
Regarding claim 13 Kobayashi teaches (figs. 4, 6, and 9) a method of manufacturing a diffractive optical element, except where forming the transparent inorganic film vapor-deposits the transparent inorganic film while performing rotation and revolution of the first resin portion, and then vapor-deposits the transparent inorganic film while performing the revolution of the first resin portion with the rotation stopped. However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the time the invention was made to utilize vapor deposition techniques, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and that the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action of the independent claims have been overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 2 and 3 both teach specific numerical values for the thickness of the inorganic film above the grating tip with relation to the rest of the film structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further diffractive sandwich resin lenses include Ishii (US 6,157,488), Nakai (US 6,262,846 B1), Nakai (US 2001/0015848 A1), and Ogawa (US 6,473,232 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872