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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 01/27/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended and claim 5 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues on page 11 that the amended claim 1 limitation “wherein the cured product contains a difunctional (meth)acrylate compound, and a proportion of the difunctional (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is 28% or more by mass and 79% or less by mass” is not taught by the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas, because Tarkin-Tas discloses compositions with IBA or IBMA are only 10% weight.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Tarkin-Tas which discloses a curable composition that comprises a functionalized phenylene ether oligomer that can be a bifunctional oligomer that comprises a (meth)acrylate group (paragraph [0011]) which is a difunctional (meth)acrylate compound and that the functionalized phenylene ether oligomer can have an amount of 20 to 40 weight percent paragraph [0061]). The examples provided in table 2 are non-limiting paragraph [0062] and fall within the less limited range of 1 to 50 weight percent (paragraph [0061]) which also overlaps with the claimed range of 28% or more by mass and 79% or less by mass.
Second Applicant argues on page 14 that the combination of Kousaka and Moser does not disclose the claim 18 limitation “an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the general formulae (1) to (4)” for the two monomers, because Moser discloses a list of (meth)acrylate monomers that do not all meet the requirements of formulas 1 to 4 and does not specify the need for isobornyl methacrylate.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Moser to disclose, an example of the suitable monomers
useful in the present invention include isobornyl methacrylate paragraph [0043] described as general
formula 2 in the current application paragraph [0018]. The isobornyl methacrylate is desirable because it is a high Tg monomer paragraph [0043]. Claim 18 requires a monomer that meets the requirements of the formulas 1 to 4 which is met by the choice of isobornyl methacrylate from the list of describe high Tg monomers provide by Moser.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574).
Regarding claim 1, Kousaka discloses, an optical element (plastic lens paragraph [0056]),
comprising:
a transparent base (transparent plastic member paragraph [0055]); and
a cured product (the functional layer can be a cured film paragraph [0057]) disposed on the
transparent base (the transparent member may have a functional layer paragraph [0055]).
Kousaka does not disclose, the cured product containing a (meth)acrylate compound having an
alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the following general formulae (1) to (4),
wherein an amount of the (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is 70% or
more by mass and 99.5% or less by mass,
wherein the general formula (4), Risa hydrogen atom, an alkyl group, or a substituted or
unsubstituted alkylene group,
wherein the cured product contains a difunctional (meth)acrylate compound, and a proportion of the difunctional (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is 28% or more by mass and 79% or less by mass.
However Tarkin-Tas discloses the cured product (curable composition paragraph [0023])
containing a (meth)acrylate compound (curable composition comprises a reactive diluent paragraph
[0024] the reactive diluent can be a (meth)acrylate monomer, a di(meth)acrylate, a vinyl monomer, or a
combination thereof paragraph [0025]) having an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the following
general formulae (1) to (4) (the reactive diluent can include isobornyl methacrylate paragraph [0025]
described as general formula 2 in the current application paragraph [0018]),
wherein an amount of the (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is 70% or
more by mass and 99.5% or less by mass (reactive diluent 60-80% by weight paragraph [0026]),
wherein the general formula (4), R is a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group, or a substituted or
unsubstituted alkylene group (this is optional because Tarkin-Tas teaches general formula 2),
wherein the cured (curable composition paragraph [0023]) product contains a difunctional (meth)acrylate compound (the curable composition comprises a functionalized phenylene ether oligomer that can be a bifunctional oligomer that comprises a (meth)acrylate group paragraph [0011]), and a proportion of the difunctional (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is and 79% or less by mass (functionalized phenylene ether oligomer is 20 to 40 weight percent paragraph [0061]).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (the cured product is 28% or more by mass and 79%
or less by mass required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Tarkin-Tas (functionalized
phenylene ether oligomer paragraph is 20 to 40 weight percent). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191
USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art
taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%."
The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges
overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim
reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of" 50 to 100 Angstroms" considered
prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of
the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that
"by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick,
[the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See
also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the
overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness
rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Tarkin-Tas further teaches (paragraph [0024]): "In addition to the functionalized phenylene
ether oligomer, the curable composition further comprises a reactive diluent. A reactive diluent can be
any compound that is miscible with all components of the curable composition and does not adversely
affect the function of the curable composition or the cured composition resulting therefrom. The
reactive diluent can be used to adjust the viscosity of the composition, rendering the curable
composition of the present disclosure useful for a variety of applications. Reactive diluents function to
solubilize the components of the composition of the present disclosure, and also to cure to form a part
of the final cured composition or article. Thus the use of the reactive diluent avoids the use of volatile
organic solvents. Accordingly, in an aspect volatile organic solvents can be minimized or excluded from
the present composition (e.g., present in an amount of less than or equal to 1 weight percent, or less
than or equaI to 0.1 weight percent, or wherein the composition is devoid of an organic solvent).
Reactive diluents useful in the present disclosure can also function as cross linking agents."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with a reactive diluent as taught by Tarkin-Tas on the
transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable product with a
reactive diluent because Tarkin-Tas teaches that the reactive diluent can be used to adjust the viscosity
of the composition, rendering the curable composition of the present disclosure useful for a variety of
applications. (Tarkin-Tas paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the cured product further contains a polymerization
initiator.
However Tarkin-Tas further discloses, wherein the cured product (curable composition
paragraph [0023]) further contains (the curable composition can optionally further comprise an auxiliary
curable resin which can be an epoxy resin paragraph [0036]) a polymerization initiator (a catalytic curing
agent functions as an initiator for epoxy resin homopolymerization paragraph [0037]).
Tarkin-Tas further teaches (paragraph [0037]): "Epoxy resins can be converted into solid,
infusible, and insoluble three dimensional networks by curing with cross-linkers, often called curing
agents, or hardeners. Curing agents are either catalytic or coreactive. Coreactive curing agents have
active hydrogen atoms that can react with epoxy groups of the epoxy res in to form a cross-linked res in
A catalytic curing agent functions as an initiator for epoxy res in homopolymerization or as an accelerator for coreactive curing agents."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with an epoxy resin as taught by Tarkin-Tas on the
transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable product with an
epoxy resin because Tarkin-Tas teaches that the epoxy resin has a catalytic curing agent to accelerate
coreactive curing agents. (Tarkin-Tas paragraph [0037]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and
in further view of Moser et al. {US 20200354484) and Taya {WO 2013015012 Al).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the (meth)acrylate compound contains a polymer obtained
by polymerizing a material containing at least one first monomer of a monofunctional (meth)acrylate
having an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the general formulae (1) to (4), and the polymer has a
weight-average molecular weight of 35,000 or more and 300,000 or less.
However Moser further discloses, wherein the (meth)acrylate compound (the polymerizable
composition comprises one or more (meth)acrylate ester monomer(s) paragraph [0041]) contains a
polymer ((meth)acrylate (co)polymers paragraph [0041]) obtained by polymerizing a material containing
at least one first monomer of a monofunctional (meth)acrylate (the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is
made from monofunctional monomers paragraph [0051]) having an alicyclic skeleton represented by
any of the general formulae (1) to (4) (an example of the suitable monomers useful in the present
invention include isobornyl methacrylate paragraph [0043] described as general formula 2 in the current
application paragraph [0018]).
Moser further teaches (paragraphs [0043] - [0044]): "In some embodiments it is desirable for
the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer to include a high Tg monomer. The homopolymers of these high
Tg monomers have a Tg of at least 25° C., and preferably at least 50° C. Examples of suitable monomers
useful in the present invention include .. isopropyl methacrylate ...
When high Tg monomers are included, the copolymer may include up to 50 parts by weight,
preferably up to 20 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylate ester monomer component."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a monofunctional (meth)acrylate with isobornyl methacrylate as taught by
Moser which can be used as the cured product of Tarkin-Tas in the optical element of Kousaka. One
would have been motivated to use a monofunctional (meth)acrylate with isobornyl methacrylate
because Moser teaches that the isobornyl methacrylate is a Tg monomer which allow the copolymer to
be up to 50 parts by weight of the monomer component. (Moser paragraphs [0043] - [0044]).
Additionally Taya discloses, the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight 300,000 or less
(acrylic polymer (a) has a weight average molecular weight 10,000 to 2,000,000 pg. 14 para. 2 of
translation and can be made from isobornyl (meth)acrylate pg. 15 para. 1 of translation).
Further In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (a weight-average molecular weight of 35,000 or more and
300,000 or less required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Taya (weight average molecular
weight 10,000 to 2,000,000). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations
of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%"
allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as
falling within a range of "SO to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art
reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less
than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is
provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches
the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49
USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and
claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no
showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kousaka, Tarkin-Tas, Moser and Taya discloses all the
limitations of claim 2.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein a proportion of the polymer contained in the cured product
is 5% or more by mass and 30% or less by mass.
However Tarkin-Tas, further discloses, wherein a proportion of the polymer contained in the
cured product (the cured product has a phenylene ether oligomer paragraph [0023]) is 5% or more by
mass and 30% or less by mass (the phenylene ether oligomer is 5 to 15 weight percent paragraph
[0023]).
Tarkin-Tas further teaches (paragraph [0023]): "The phenylene ether oligomer can be present in
the curable composition in an amount of 1 to 50 weight percent, based on the total weight of the
phenylene ether oligomer and the reactive diluent and, when present, a photocurable resin (as
discussed below). Within this range, the phenylene ether oligomer can be present in an amount of 10 to
40 weight percent, or 10 to 30 weight percent, or 20 to 40 weight percent, or 5 to 30 weight percent, or
5 to 15 weight percent."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with a polymer percent weight as taught by Tarkin-Tas on
the transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable product with
a polymer percent weight because Tarkin-Tas teaches that the polymer at a 1 to 50 weight percent
allows for a reactive diluent and a photocurable resin (Tarkin-Tas paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kousaka, Tarkin-Tas, Moser and Taya discloses all the
limitations of claim 3.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein a proportion of a portion of the polymer in which the first
monomer has been polymerized is 60% or more by mass and 100% or less by mass.
However Tarkin-Tas further discloses, wherein a proportion of a portion of the polymer in which
the first monomer has been polymerized (photocurable resins are polymeric structures including a
(meth)acrylate-containing oligomer or polymer paragraph 0027]) is and 100% or less by mass (the
photocurable resin is 58 to 68 percent weight paragraph [0028]).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior a rt" a prim a facie case of obviousness exists. ( 60% or more by mass required by the claim lies
inside the ranges disclosed by Tarkin-Tas (the photocurable resin is 58 to 68 percent weight). In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim
was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly
above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "SO to 100
Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable
protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100
Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective
layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness
within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52
(CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was
sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of
the claimed range).
Tarkin-Tas further teaches (paragraph [0027]): "In an aspect, the curable composition can
optionally further comprise one or more photocurable resins. As used herein, the term "photocurable
resin" refers to an oligomeric or polymeric structure containing at least one reactive group that can be
photocured ... When present, the photocurable resin is preferably soluble in the reactive diluent. In an
aspect, the photocurable resin can comprise an acrylate functionalized aliphatic polyurethane."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with a photocurable resin as taught by Tarkin-Tas on the
transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable product with a
photocurable resin because Tarkin-Tas teaches that the photocurable resin is preferably soluble in the in
the reactive diluent (Tarkin-Tas paragraph [0027]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and
in further view of Takagi {WO 202016533 Al).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the cured product has an internal transmittance of 70% or more at a wavelength of 400 nm and a converted thickness of 500 um.
However Takagi discloses, wherein the cured product (the curable composition contains
methacrylate paragraph [0064] of translation) has an internal transmittance of70% or more at a
wavelength of 400 nm (the internal transmittance of light with a 400 nm wavelength is preferably 97%
or more paragraph [0062] of translation) and a converted thickness of 500 um (the thickness of the
cured product is 0.05 to 10 mm paragraph [0059] of translation).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (a converted thickness of 500 um required by the
claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Takagi (the thickness of the cured product is 0.05 to 10 mm). In
re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim
was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly
above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "SO to 100
Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable
protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100
Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective
layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness
within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52
(CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was
sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of
the claimed range).
Takagi further teaches (paragraph [0062] of translation): "The internal transmittance of light
with a wavelength of 400 nm per mm of thickness of the cured product calculated from Equations 2 and
3 is preferably 50% or more, more preferably 90% or more, even more preferably 95% or more, and
particularly preferably 97% or more. When the internal transmittance is equal to or greater than the
lower limit of the above range, the transparency of the cured product is particularly excellent. The
higher the internal transmittance, the better, with the upper limit being 100%."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with an internal transmittance of 70% or more as taught
by Takagi on the transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable
product with a with an internal transmittance of 70% or more because Tarkin-Tas teaches that the with
an internal transmittance increases so does the transparency of the cured product (Takagi paragraph
[0062]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the cured product has an Abbe number of 50 or more and
less than 60.
However Takagi discloses, wherein the cured product (the curable composition contains
methacrylate paragraph [0064] of translation) has an Abbe number of 50 or more (the Abbe number of
the cured product is preferably 58 or more paragraph [0067] of translation).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a
prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Abbe number of 50 or more and less than 60 required by the
claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Takagi (Abbe number of the cured product is preferably 58 or
more). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "a bout 1-5%"
while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for
concentrations slightly above 5%thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43
USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a
range of" 50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prim a facie obvious in view of prior a rt reference teaching
that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm
[i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the
protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a
thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49 USPQ 749,
751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range
was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality
of the claimed range).
Takagi further teaches (paragraph [0067] of translation): "The Abbe number of the cured
product calculated from the following formula 5 is preferably 54 or more, more preferably 56 or more,
and even more preferably 58 or more. When the Abbe number is equal to or greater than the lower
limit of the above range, chromatic aberration is unlikely to occur. The higher the Abbe number, the
better, and there is no particular upper limit, but it is about 70 considering that it is an organic
substance".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with an Abbe number of 50 or more and 60 or less as
taught by Takagi on the transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the
curable product with a with an Abbe number of 50 or more and 60 or less because Tarkin-Tas teaches
that a higher Abbe means chromatic aberration are unlikely to occur (Takagi paragraph [0067]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US 20160215121
Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view
of Nimura {KR 20060051596 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the cured product has a coefficient of hygroscopic
expansion of less than 0. 30%.
However Nimura discloses, wherein the cured product (the transparent film can be polymethyl
methacrylate pg. 17 lines 7-8 that is cured layer pg. 17 line 16 of translation) has a coefficient of
hygroscopic expansion of less than 0.30% (It is preferable that the coefficient of hygroscopic expansion
of the transparent film according to the present invention be 30 x 10-5/% RH or less pg. 13 lines 14-15 of
translation).
Nimura further teaches (pg. 13 line 17 - pg. 14 line 4 of translation): "Also, the smaller the
coefficient of hygroscopic expansion is desirable, but it is usually a value of 1.0xl0-5/% RH or higher. It is
also desirable that the coefficients of hygroscopic expansion in the machine direction and vertical
direction be almost equal. The coefficient of hygroscopic expansion represents the change in the length
of a sample when the relative humidity changes under a constant temperature. By controlling this
coefficient of hygroscopic expansion, when a transparent film is used as a support for an optical
compensation film, the optical compensation function of the optical compensation film can be
maintained while increasing the transmittance of the frame, that is, light leakage due to distortion can
be prevented.".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the curable product with a low hygroscopic expansion as taught by Nimura on
the transparent substrate of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use the curable product with
a low hygroscopic expansion because Nimura teaches that a lower hygroscopic expansion increases the
transmission (Nimura paragraph [0067]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US 20160215121
Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view
of Akiyama {JP 2011001492 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein a difference between refractive indices nd of the cured
product at ad-line in an in-plane direction and in a thickness direction is within 0.0003.
However Akiyama discloses, wherein a difference between refractive indices nd of the cured
product (photocurable resin paragraph [0184]) at ad-line (the refractive index used here is a value (nD)
measured using sodium D line (wavelength 589.2)) in an in-plane direction and in a thickness direction is
within 0.0003 (the cured coating is preferably substantially transparent and optically isotropic paragraph
[0184] and has the same refractive index in every direction.
Kousaka discloses the claimed invention except the refractive index of the curable film is not
disclosed. Akiyama shows that having an isotropic film is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore,
because these two curable films were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an isotropic
film for a film that does not discloses its refractive index, and the results thereof would have been
predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. (US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and
in further view of Miyakawa et al. {US 20020064575 Al).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the transparent base has a first surface with a concave
spherical shape, and the cured product is disposed over the first surface.
However Miya kawa discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the transparent base (base member 10 fig. 2 is made of a transparent material paragraph [0057]) has a first surface with a concave spherical
shape (the base member 10 has a resin layer 11 molding surface which is a concave surface paragraph
[0036]), and the cured product (resin layer 11 fig. 2) is disposed over the first surface (the resin layer 11
is disposed on the base member 10 fig. 2).
Kousaka discloses the claimed invention except a convex surface is used instead of a concave
lens surface. Miyakawa shows that the concave lens surface is an equivalent structure in the art.
Therefore, because these lens surfaces were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a concave lens surface for a convex lens surface, and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kousaka, Tarkin-Tas and Miyakawa discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein a proportion of a maximum thickness d2 to a minimum
thickness dl of the cured product is more than 1 and 30 or less.
However Miyakawa further discloses, wherein a proportion of a maximum thickness d2
(maximum layer thickness 12 fig. 1) to a minimum thickness dl (minimum layer thickness 13 fig. 1) of
the cured product (resin layer 11 fig. 1) is more than 1 and 30 or less (maximum resin thickness 850um
to minimum resin thickness 100 um paragraph [0060] results in a proportion of 8.5).
Miyakawa further teaches (paragraph [0028]): "In the optical element of the present invention,
the resin layer may preferably have layer thickness which becomes gradually smaller toward the
periphery, at least at some part of the peripheral portion. Making the resin layer have such a thickness
that does not form any stair so as not to have any abrupt change in thickness is preferred because not
only molds can be produced with easy but also any defects can be prevented that may occur because
the resin cannot turn around when a resin composition is poured into the mold."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a thickness proportion between 1 and 30 as taught by Miyakawa for the resin
layer of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to have a thickness proportion between 1 and 30
because Miyakawa teaches that the thickness does not have any abrupt changes as it becomes gradually
smaller (Miyakawa paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kousaka, Tarkin-Tas and Kojima discloses all the
limitations of claim 12.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the minimum thickness dl is 300 um or less, and the
maximum thickness d2 is 10 um or more and 1,000 um or less.
However Miyakawa further discloses, wherein the minimum thickness dl is 300 um or less
(minimum resin thickness 100 um paragraph [0060]), and the maximum thickness d2 is 10 um or more
and 1,000 um or less (maximum resin thickness 850um paragraph [0060]).
Miyakawa further teaches (paragraph [0028]): "In the opticaI element of the present invention,
the resin layer may preferably have layer thickness which becomes gradually smaller toward the
periphery, at least at some part of the peripheral portion. Making the resin layer have such a thickness
that does not form any stair so as not to have any abrupt change in thickness is preferred because not
only molds can be produced with easy but also any defects can be prevented that may occur because
the resin cannot turn around when a resin composition is poured into the mold."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a maximum and minimum thickness as taught by Miyakawa for the resin layer
of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to have a maximum and minimum thickness because
Miyakawa teaches that the thickness does not have any abrupt changes as it becomes gradually smaller (Miyakawa paragraph [0028]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. (US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and
in further view of Moravek et al. {US 20200197918).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the cured product contains a sulfur-containing compound
having at least one thiol group, an amount of the (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured
product is 70% or more by mass and 99% or less by mass, and a proportion of the sulfur-containing
compound having the at least one thiol group in the cured product is 1% or more by mass and 15% or
less by mass.
However Moravek further discloses wherein the cured product (curable composition paragraph
[0103]) contains a sulfur-containing compound (curable compositions includes a polythiol paragraph
[0104]) having at least one thiol group (the sulfur-containing prepolymer may be thiol-terminated such
as a thiol-terminated polythioether, a thiol-terminated polysulfide, or a combination thereof paragraph
[0102]), an amount of the (meth)acrylate compound contained in the cured product is 70% or more by
mass and 99% or less by mass (the polyene is in an amount of at least 10 and less than 90 percent by
weight paragraph [0103] which can be a (meth)acrylate paragraph [0034]), and a proportion of the
sulfur-containing compound having the at least one thiol group in the cured product is 1% or more by
mass and 15% or less by mass (the polythiol is present in the curable composition between 10 and 90 percent by weight paragraph [0158]).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (the (meth)acrylate compound contained in the
cured product is 70% or more by mass and 99% or less by mass and the at least one thiol group in the
cured product is 1% or more by mass and 15% or less by mass required by the claim lies inside the
ranges disclosed by Moravek (the polyene is in an amount of at least 10 and less than 90 percent by
weight and the polythiol is present in the curable composition between 10 and 90 percent by weight).
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d
1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior a rt taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the
claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations
slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "SO to
100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable
protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100
Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective
layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness
within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52
(CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was
sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of
the claimed range).
Further, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses the claimed invention except and
the at least one thiol group in the cured product is 1% or more by mass and 15% or less by mass instead
of 25 to 49 percent by mass. Moravek shows that the at least one thiol group in the cured product is 1%
or more by mass and 15% or less by mass is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these
two thiol weight percents were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the weight percent of
the thiol group to be between 1 and 15 percent by weight, and the results thereof would have been
predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kousaka, Tarkin-Tas and Moravek discloses all the
limitations of claim 14.
Kousaka does not discloses, wherein the at least one thiol group of the sulfur-containing
compound having the at least one thiol group comprises two thiol groups.
However Moravek further discloses wherein the at least one thiol group of the sulfur-containing
compound having the at least one thiol group comprises two thiol groups (the sulfur-containing
prepolymer may be thiol-terminated such as a thiol-terminated polythioether, a thiol-terminated
polysulfide, or a combination thereof paragraph [0102] where polythiol refers to compounds containing
two or more thiol functional groups paragraph [0104]).
Additionally, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses the claimed invention except
the use of two thiol groups. Moravek shows that the use of two thiol groups is an equivalent structure in
the art. Therefore, because different amounts of thiol groups were art-recognized equivalents before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to substitute a compound with one thiol group for a compound with two thiol groups, and the
results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Tarkin-Tas et al. {US 20210269574) as applied to claim 1 above and
in further view of Someya et al. {US 20230048981 Al).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, an optical apparatus, comprising:
a housing; and
an optical system including one or more lenses disposed in the housing,
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element according to Claim 1.
However Someya discloses in at least figure 1, an optical apparatus (imaging device 1 fig.1),
comprising:
a housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1); and
an optical system (photographing lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]) including one
or more lenses (lens 103 fig. 1) disposed in the housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1),
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element (photographing lens 103 includes a
cured object paragraph [0091]) according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Someya further teaches (paragraphs [0088] - [0089]): "The cured object according to the
present embodiment may be used as an optical element. The optical element including the cured object
includes a mirror, a lens, a prism, and a filter. Suitable usage examples include an optical lens. Further,
the optical element according to the present embodiment may be used for an optical system including
the optical element. The optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for
an interchangeable camera lens including the optical system. Publicly-known configurations may be
employed for the optical element, the optical lens, and the interchangeable camera lens. Further, the
optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for an optical device
including the optical system. The optical device including the optical system is not particularly limited,
and examples thereof include an imaging device such as a lens-interchangeable camera and a fixed lens
camera, and an optical microscope."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the optical element of Kousaka in the optical system as taught by Someya. One
would have been motivated to use the optical element in an optical system because Someya teaches
that the optical element can be a mirror lens or prism and may be suitably used for an interchangeable
camera lens in an optical system or in an optical microscope (Someya paragraphs [0088]- [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 1.
Kousaka does not disclose, An image pickup apparatus, comprising:
a housing;
an optical system including one or more lenses disposed in the housing; and
an image pickup element configured to receive light passing through the optical system,
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element according to Claim 1.
However Someya discloses in at least figure 1, an optical apparatus (imaging device 1 fig.1),
comprising:
a housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1); and
an optical system (photographing lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]) including one
or more lenses (lens 103 fig. 1) disposed in the housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1), an image pickup element (sensor chip 104 fig. 1) configured to receive light passing through (the sensor chip 104 receives light from the photographing lens 103 fig.1) the optical system (photographing
lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]),
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element (photographing lens 103 includes a
cured object paragraph [0091]) according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Someya further teaches (paragraphs [0088] - [0089]): "The cured object according to the
present embodiment may be used as an optical element. The optical element including the cured object
includes a mirror, a lens, a prism, and a filter. Suitable usage examples include an optical lens. Further,
the optical element according to the present embodiment may be used for an optical system including
the optical element. The optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for
an interchangeable camera lens including the optical system. Publicly-known configurations may be
employed for the optical element, the optical lens, and the interchangeable camera lens. Further, the
optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for an optical device
including the optical system. The optical device including the optical system is not particularly limited,
and examples thereof include an imaging device such as a lens-interchangeable camera and a fixed lens
camera, and an optical microscope."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the optical element of Kousaka in the optical system as taught by Someya. One
would have been motivated to use the optical element in an optical system because Someya teaches
that the optical element can be a mirror lens or prism and may be suitably used for an interchangeable
camera lens in an optical system or in an optical microscope (Someya paragraphs [0088] - [0089]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US 20160215121
Al) et al. in view of Moser et al. (US 202000354484).
Regarding claim 18, Kousaka discloses, an optical element (plastic lens paragraph [0056]),
comprising:
a transparent base (transparent plastic member paragraph [0055]); and
a cured product (the functional layer can be a cured film paragraph [0057]) of a resin
composition (the resin composition is coated on the surface of the plastic lens substrate and cured to
form the functorial layer paragraph [0061]) disposed on the transparent base (the transparent member
may have a functional layer paragraph [0055]).
Kousaka does not disclose, wherein the res in composition contains:
a polymer obtained by polymerizing a material containing at least one first monomer of a
monofunctional (meth)acrylate having an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the following general
formulae (1) to (4), and
a second monomer containing a polymerizable functional group of a monofunctional
(meth)acrylate having an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the general formulae (1) to (4) and/or
a third monomer containing a polymerizable functional group of a difunctional (meth)acrylate having an
alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the general formulae (1) to (4),
wherein a total amount of the polymer, the second monomer, and the third monomer
contained is 70% or more by mass and 99.5% or less by mass,
where in the general formula (4), R is a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group, or a substituted or
unsubstituted alkylene group.
However Moser discloses, wherein the resin composition (polymerizable composition may also
include mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic synthetic hydrocarbon resins paragraph [0059]) contains:
a polymer ((meth)acrylate (co)polymers paragraph [0041]) obtained by polymerizing a material
containing at least one first monomer of a monofunctional (meth)acrylate (the multifunctional
(meth)acrylate is made from monofunctional monomers paragraph [0051]) having an alicyclic skeleton
represented by any of the following general formulae (1) to (4) (an example of the suitable monomers
useful in the present invention include isobornyl methacrylate paragraph [0043] described as general
formula 2 in the current application paragraph [0018]), and
a second monomer containing a polymerizable functional group of a monofunctional
(meth)acrylate having an alicyclic skeleton represented by any of the general formulae (1) to (4) and/or
a third monomer (a multifunctional (meth)acrylate paragraph [0050]) containing a polymerizable
functional group of a difunctional (meth)acrylate (a multifunctional (meth)acrylate may be incorporated
into the blend of polymerizable monomers paragraph [0050]) having an alicyclic skeleton represented
by any of the general formulae (1) to (4) (the multifunctional (meth)acrylate can be mixtures of
di(meth)acrylates and tri(meth)acrylates paragraph [0050] such as tricyclodeane and dicyclopentenyl
described as formulas 1 and 3 in paragraph [0018] of the current application),
wherein a total amount of the polymer, the second monomer, and the third monomer
contained is 99.5% or less by mass (the polymerizable composition may include 20-80 parts by weight of
the multifunctional (meth)acrylate monomers and/or multifunctional (meth)acrylate reactive oligomers
paragraph [0089] resulting in 20-80 percent weight in 100 parts by weight),
wherein the general formula (4), R is a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group, or a substituted or
unsubstituted alkylene group (this is optional because Moser teaches general formulas 1 and 3).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art" a prim a facie case of obviousness exists. A total amount of the polymer, the second
monomer, and the third monomer contained is 70% or more by mass and 99.5% or less by mass
required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Moser (20-80 percent weight in 100 parts by
weight). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16
USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "a bout 1-5%"
while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for
concentrations slightly above 5%thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43
USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a
range of" SO to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior a rt reference teaching
that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm
[i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the
protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a
thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49 USPQ 749,
751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range
was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality
of the claimed range).
Moser further teaches (paragraphs [0043] - [0051]): "In some embodiments it is desirable for
the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer to include a high Tg monomer. The homopolymers of these high
Tg monomers have a Tg of at least 25° C., and preferably at least 50° C. Examples of suitable monomers
useful in the present invention include .. isopropyl methacrylate ... When high Tg monomers are included, the copolymer may include up to 50 parts by weight, preferably up to 20 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylate ester monomer component. A multifunctional (meth)acrylate may be incorporated into the blend of polymerizable monomers. Examples of useful multifunctional (meth)acrylates include, but are not limited to, di(meth)acrylates, tri(meth)acrylates, and tetra(meth)acrylates, such as 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) di(meth)acrylates, polybutadiene di(meth)acrylate, polyurethane di(meth)acrylates, and propoxylated glycerin tri(meth)acrylate, and mixtures thereof. The amount and identity of multifunctional (meth)acrylate is tailored depending upon application of the adhesive composition, for example, adhesives, or hard coats. Typically, the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is present in amounts up to 100 parts, preferably 0.1 to 100 parts, based 100 parts by weight of remaining polymerizable monofunctional monomers. In some embodiments the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is used in amounts of greater than 50 parts by weight, based on the 100 parts by weight of remaining polymerizable monomers. In some embodiments, the multifunctional (meth)acrylate may be present in amounts from 0.01 to 5 parts, preferably 0.05 to 1 parts, based on 100 parts total monomers of the polymerizable composition for adhesive applications, and greater amounts for hard coats."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a monofunctional (meth)acrylate with isobornyl methacrylate and a
multifunctional (meth)acrylate as taught by Moser which can be used as the cured product in the optical
element of Kousaka. One would have been motivated to use a monofunctional (meth)acrylate with
isobornyl methacrylate and a multifunctional (meth)acrylate because Moser teaches that the isobornyl
methacrylate is a Tg monomer which allow the copolymer to be up to 50 parts by weight of the
monomer component and that the multifunctional (meth)acrylate is preferably present for adhesive
applications and hard coats. (Moser paragraphs [0043] - [0051]).
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousaka {US
20160215121 Al) et al. in view of Moser et al. (US 202000354484) as applied to claim 18 above and in
further view of Someya et al. {US 20230048981 Al).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kousaka and Moser discloses all the limitations of claim
18.
Kousaka does not disclose, an optical apparatus, comprising:
a housing; and
an optical system including one or more lenses disposed in the housing,
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element according to Claim 18.
However Someya discloses in at least figure 1, an optical apparatus (imaging device 1 fig.1),
comprising:
a housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1); and
an optical system (photographing lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]) including one
or more lenses (lens 103 fig. 1) disposed in the housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1),
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element (photographing lens 103 includes a
cured object paragraph [0091]) according to Claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Someya further teaches (paragraphs [0088] - [0089]): "The cured object according to the
present embodiment may be used as an optical element. The optical element including the cured object
includes a mirror, a lens, a prism, and a filter. Suitable usage examples include an optical lens. Further,
the optical element according to the present embodiment may be used for an optical system including
the optical element. The optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for
an interchangeable camera lens including the optical system. Publicly-known configurations may be
employed for the optical element, the optical lens, and the interchangeable camera lens. Further, the
optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for an optical device
including the optical system. The optical device including the optical system is not particularly limited,
and examples thereof include an imaging device such as a lens-interchangeable camera and a fixed lens
camera, and an optical microscope."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the optical element of Kousaka in the optical system as taught by Someya. One
would have been motivated to use the optical element in an optical system because Someya teaches
that the optical element can be a mirror lens or prism and may be suitably used for an interchangeable
camera lens in an optical system or in an optical microscope (Someya paragraphs [0088] - [0089]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kousaka and Tarkin-Tas discloses all the limitations of
claim 18.
Kousaka does not disclose, An image pickup apparatus, comprising:
a housing;
an optical system including one or more lenses disposed in the housing; and
an image pickup element configured to receive light passing through the optical system,
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element according to Claim 18.
However Someya discloses in at least figure 1, an optical apparatus (imaging device 1 fig.1),
comprising:
a housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1); and
an optical system (photographing lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]) including one
or more lenses (lens 103 fig. 1) disposed in the housing (lens barrel 102 fig. 1), an image pickup element (sensor chip 104 fig. 1) configured to receive light passing through (the sensor chip 104 receives light from the photographing lens 103 fig. 1) the opticaI system (photographing
lens 103 is an optical system paragraph [0091]),
wherein at least one of the lenses is the optical element (photographing lens 103 includes a
cured object paragraph [0091]) according to Claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Someya further teaches (paragraphs [0088] - [0089]): "The cured object according to the
present embodiment may be used as an optical element. The optical element including the cured object
includes a mirror, a lens, a prism, and a filter. Suitable usage examples include an optical lens. Further,
the optical element according to the present embodiment may be used for an optical system including
the optical element. The optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for
an interchangeable camera lens including the optical system. Publicly-known configurations may be
employed for the optical element, the optical lens, and the interchangeable camera lens. Further, the
optical system according to the present embodiment may be suitably used for an optical device
including the optical system. The optical device including the optical system is not particularly limited,
and examples thereof include an imaging device such as a lens-interchangeable camera and a fixed lens
camera, and an optical microscope."
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the optical element of Kousaka in the optical system as taught by Someya. One
would have been motivated to use the optical element in an optical system because Someya teaches
that the optical element can be a mirror lens or prism and may be suitably used for an interchangeable
camera lens in an optical system or in an optical microscope (Someya paragraphs [0088] - [0089]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arishima et al. (US 20110310721 A1) discloses a polymerizable compound with a cured film using methyl groups.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872