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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2005/0036212) in view of Yokino et al. (US 9,360,599).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses, an optical element (Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
a base material (7a); and
a resin portion (7b),
wherein the base material has a spherical surface (Para. 0038, lines 1-4), a flat surface surrounding the spherical surface (see annotated Fig. 1A below), and a ridge line portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below) including a ridge line (see annotated Fig. 1A below) at the boundary between the spherical surface and the flat surface,
wherein the resin portion
is provided over the spherical surface and over the flat surface of the base material straddling the ridge line portion (see annotated Fig. 1A below),
has a linear expansion coefficient different from a linear expansion coefficient of the base material (Para. 0038, lines 8-10),
has a thickness at a first point between a center and an edge of the spherical surface of the base material (see annotated Fig. 1A below), which is thicker than a thickness at the center (see annotated Fig. 1A below),
has a thickness thinner than the maximum thickness at a second point between the first point and the edge (see annotated Fig. 1A below), and
has a thickness thicker at the ridge line portion than the thickness at the second point (see annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saito does not explicitly disclose the resin portion has a maximum thickness at a first point between a center and an edge of the surface.
Yokino teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical element () that it would have been desirable to make the resin portion () has a maximum thickness at a first point () between a center () and an edge () of the surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the resin portion has a maximum thickness at a first point between a center and an edge of the surface as taught by the optical element of Yokino in the optical element of Saito since Yokino teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical element for the purpose of providing an optical element that reliably reduces stress, deforming, peeling and distortions.
Furthermore, the Examiner points out that in regards to the limitation “the resin portion has a maximum thickness at a first point between a center and an edge of the surface” MPEP 2144.04(IV) states “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” – Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 2, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resin portion at the first point is three times or more than the thickness of the resin portion at the center. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make have the thickness of the resin portion at the first point is three times or more than the thickness of the resin portion at the center, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resin portion at the center is 300 µm or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the resin portion at the center is 300 µm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resin portion at the first point is thicker than the thickness of the resin portion at the center by 200 µm or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the resin portion at the first point is thicker than the thickness of the resin portion at the center by 200 µm or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resin portion at the second point is 0.5 times or less than the thickness of the resin portion at the first point. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the resin portion at the second point is 0.5 times or less than the thickness of the resin portion at the first point, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the resin portion at the ridge line portion is 100 µm or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the resin portion at the ridge line portion is 100 µm or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Saito in view of Yokino does not explicitly disclose the flat surface has a surface roughness larger than a surface roughness of the spherical surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flat surface has a surface roughness larger than a surface roughness of the spherical surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see in re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, the base material is made of glass (Para. 0038; note, discloses a glass lens).
Regarding claim 9, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, the spherical surface is a concave spherical surface (Para. 0038-0039 and see annotated Fig. 1A above).
Regarding claim 10, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, the base material has a circular planar shape in plan view viewed in a layering direction of the resin portion at the center (see annotated Fig. 1A above).
Regarding claim 11, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, the flat surface is a plane perpendicular to a layering direction of the resin portion at the center (see annotated Fig. 1A above).
Regarding claim 12, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, wherein an internal transmittance of the resin portion is at least 70% with respect to a wavelength of 400 nm at a converted thickness of 500 µm (Para. 0063 and see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, wherein a surface of the resin portion has an aspherical shape (Para. 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 14, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, wherein the resin portion is a cured product of an energy curable composition (Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 15, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, an Abbe number of the resin portion is 50 or more and less than 60 (Para. 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 16, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, an optical apparatus (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a housing (100) and an optical system (101) having at least one lens (see annotated Fig. 1B above) arranged within the housing (Para. 0038),
wherein the at least one lens is the optical element according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Saito in view of Yokino discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saito further discloses, an imaging apparatus (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a housing (100), an optical system (101) having at least one lens (see annotated Fig. 1B above) arranged within the housing (Para. 0038), and an imaging element (102) that receives light that has passed through the optical system,
wherein the at least one lens is the optical element according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights