Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/16/2026.
Amendments to the specification and to claims 1-2, 4, 26, and 28, filed 1/16/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the claim amendments, several rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn. However, those of claims 8-15 and 30-33, which Applicant has elected to argue instead of correct, are maintained below.
Despite amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification are maintained, as Applicant has only partially addressed the informalities that Examiner had identified in the Non-Final Rejection. It appears also that Applicant has made no additional effort to address any of the other issues that Applicant was informed may be present throughout the specification. More of these have been added to the updated objection below, though Applicant is again advised that this list of issues is not exhaustive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given below.
On pgs. 16-17 of the Remarks, Applicant first argues against the drawing objections by asserting that the specification describes the structure of the bokeh filter membrane and that the drawings contain reflectance/transmittance curves. None of this is even the slightest bit relevant to the fact that the drawings themselves fail to illustrate the claimed structure at issue, however. Examiner thus maintains the objections to such plain deficiencies in the drawings below, and reiterates that Applicant’s continued refusal to submit proper drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.83 and 37 CFR 1.121(d) may ultimately result in abandonment of the application.
On pg. 17 of the Remarks, Applicant appears to suggest that a single word (“that”), accidentally omitted in a specification objection (6J of the Non-Final Rejection), was sufficient to bring the highlighted excerpt into proper form. While Applicant’s acknowledgment of the typo is appreciated, Examiner disagrees. The excerpt at issue –
“Therefore, by the arrangements that an absorbing membrane that can absorb the visible light is arranged in a multilayer coating […]”
– as recited in ¶ 25 remains grammatically deficient and unclear. If Applicant remains uncertain as to this and other deficiencies, they should seek appropriate counsel to ensure the full specification is presented in clear and proper English.
On pgs. 19-21 of the Remarks, Applicant then addresses rejections of claims 8-15 and 30-33 under 35 USC 112(b), asserting that
“one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention can directly and unambiguously understand that the bokeh filter membrane as claimed in claims 14-15 is disposed on the substrate, and the values of the average transmittance of the bokeh filter membrane as claimed therein are related to the arrangement thereof” – Remarks pg. 20.
Apparently, Applicant intends to argue that the claimed reflectance/transmittance properties should be read to pertain to the combination of the bokeh filter membrane and substrate – despite Applicant’s own claim language attributing such properties only explicitly to the former.
To argue their position, Applicant makes various ineffectual references to the specification, apparently in an attempt to justify why an ordinary practitioner would read the claims in this manner. Nothing Applicant has pointed to specifically requires such a reading, however. And if Applicant had intended to create a special definition or limiting statement for such a requirement, it would seem they have completely failed to do so.
Applicant should note that such arguments are further unsuccessful for being fundamentally improper, as it is well-established that limitations of the specification are not to be read into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01(II).
Applicant is thus advised that the references they have made to both the specification and to other claims (1, 26) not currently at issue – e.g. describing the bokeh filter membrane as being arranged on the substrate – have done nothing to require importing the substrate into a reading of the bokeh filter membrane itself, as recited in the claims that are at issue. In fact, all Applicant has done here is call further attention to their inconsistent treatment of these features throughout the application – which is even further cause to maintain the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for indefiniteness (and to maintain the specification objections of the Non-Final Rejection, where it was already noted that the specification is replete with informalities).
The basic fact thus remains that the bokeh filter membrane and the substrate were plainly introduced as two separate features in independent claims 1 and 26 – and that the claimed transmittance/reflectance properties are explicitly attributed to the former, not the latter. Recitation of the bokeh filter membrane does not automatically invoke the substrate, despite Applicant’s best arguments to the contrary.
In fact, by attempting to leverage only irrelevant descriptions of the bokeh filter membrane as being arranged on the substrate, what Applicant has done is shown their position to be borne from little more than a non sequitur that relies on overextrapolating/overinterpreting such irrelevant descriptions, and misreading the plain claim language based on them. Accordingly, Examiner finds Applicant’s position to be wholly unpersuasive.
On pgs. 21-26 of the Remarks, Applicant lastly argues the rejections of claims 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Nothing presented is remotely convincing, however, for at least the following reasons:
Between pgs. 22-25, Applicant spends much of their response improperly arguing that the references do not disclose features for which they were not even cited, stating
“Koga is without the arrangement of a gradient refraction membrane. Further, Koga also fails to disclose the feature ‘115.0 nm < TNG < 1000.0 nm’” – Remarks pg. 23
and
“Yoshihiro is without the arrangement of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane” – Remarks pg. 24.
A simple review of the Non-Final Rejection would reveal such arguments to be largely irrelevant, however, as they simply neglect to consider the actual evidence on record. Refer again to ¶s 21.A and 21.E of the Non-Final Rejection detailing Yoshihiro’s disclosure of the claimed gradient refraction membrane and TNG range, as well as ¶ 18.A detailing Koga’s gradient thickness absorbing membrane.
In view of such nonsubstantive arguments against the individual references above, Applicant is also reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner thus finds Applicant’s follow up statements
“because Koga fails to disclose the arrangement of the gradient refraction
membrane, and Yoshihiro fails to disclose the arrangement of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane, it would not have been obvious and without the motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Koga with Yoshihiro” – Remarks pg. 25
to be largely improper and unconvincing. While the statement/rationale is not particularly clear, it would appear Applicant is simply declaring nonobviousness without any substantive support – pointing instead to alleged deficiencies as addressed above. Such conclusory remarks clearly represent nothing other than a basic non sequitur, however, as absence of details in one reference that are found in another have absolutely no bearings on whether it would have been obvious to combine teachings of the two. And as already established above, Applicant’s empty attacks on individual references are entirely irrelevant, as well as inadequate for making any determination of obviousness.
On pg. 25, Applicant then attempts to argue that Koga does not disclose the TNG range claimed in claim 1. However, Applicant’s arguments are again improper for neglecting the actual facts of the case, and also for cherry-picking other irrelevant details to suit their own argument. More specifically, Applicant points to features associated with certain embodiments that were not even applied towards the rejection, asserting that
“the film thickness[=TNG][…] of Yoshihiro was set to 10 nm” – Remarks pg. 25.
Let it be noted, however, that Applicant has entirely failed to address Yoshihiro’s ¶ 104, cited in the rejection and providing a thickness(=TNG) range extending up to 270 nm.
Lastly, Applicant’s remaining arguments on pgs. 25-26, which appear to be directed only to some intended purported benefits
( “achieve the efficiency […] favorable for maintaining […] favorable for adjusting […] optimal pore structure can be maintained[…]” – Remarks pgs. 25-26)
are largely irrelevant, given the lack of substance here or in any other accompanying argument addressed above. Applicant is therefore advised that arguments which amount only to some general allegations that the claims define a patentable invention – without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references – will generally fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the constituents of the bokeh filter membrane – e.g. the (first/second) gradient thickness absorbing membrane(s), (first/second) high-and-low reflection membrane(s), adjacent membrane layer, gradient refraction membrane – and substrate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows (cited paragraph numbers with respect to the original specification):
¶ 4, line 1, “in the prior,” does not make any clear reference, but could be a typo of “in the prior art”
¶ 23, lines 5-6, “at different positions on the substrate so as to produce differences in different positions” is materially vague and redundant.
¶ 23, lines 18-22: “by the arrangements that the pores with a gradient change of size of the gradient refraction membrane and […], it is favorable for […]” is not clear/proper English.
¶ 25, lines 1-2: “Therefore, by the arrangements that an absorbing membrane can absorb the visible light is arranged in a multilayer coating” is not clear/proper English.
¶ 25, line 8, “at different positions on the substrate so as to produce differences in different positions” is materially vague and redundant.
¶ 44, “at least one surface of the first optical element and at least one surface of the second optical element includes the bokeh filter membrane.” is plainly nonsensical
¶ 53, lines 7-8, “so as to produce differences in different positions in the form of concentric circles” is materially vague, redundant, and unclear
Throughout the entire specification, it would appear that Applicant has failed to properly attribute certain transmittance or reflectance properties or clarify whether these pertain to the substrate, the bokeh filter membrane, or the combination of the two.
For example, ¶ 5, lines 5-6; ¶ 9, lines 5-6; ¶ 22, lines 6-7; ¶ 24; lines 6-7 all describe “a transmittance of the substrate” despite Applicant apparently intending to describe the substrate+membrane combination. Note that, in the Non-Final Rejection, Applicant was already informed of identical errors being at the root of 112(b) issues in claims 1 and 26 – rejections for which the specification and claim issues were directly identified alongside one another. Note also that, while Applicant has amended around the issues in the claims, they have failed to address any of those present in the specification.
A different example can be found in ¶ 25, lines 6-9, describing how a “bokeh filter membrane is arranged […] so that the transmittance gradually decreases” – from which it is unclear if Applicant has somehow divorced the membrane from its substrate to measure its optical properties, or if Applicant is simply mischaracterizing the system. Similar issues persist throughout the specification – e.g. ¶ 39 “an average transmittance […] of the bokeh filter membrane” – and it is also at the root of claims 8-15 and 30-33’s 112(b) issues, as noted in in the Non-Final Rejection and maintained below. Note that instead of properly addressing such blatant issues, Applicant has elected to unsuccessfully argue that the substrate+membrane combination would be clear from the plainly incompatible written description; see Response to Arguments above.
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Applicant is further advised that, in response to the above objections, a substitute specification excluding the claims will be required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a), because the number or nature of the amendments through multiple rounds of revision will render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
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 8-15 and 30-33 are 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.
Regarding claims 8-15 and 30-33, claim 8, lines 1-2; claim 9, lines 1-2; claim 10, lines 3-4; claim 11, lines 3-4; claim 12, lines 3-4; claim 13, lines 3-4; claim 14, lines 1-3; claim 15, lines 1-3, 3-5, 7-8, and 9-11; claim 30 lines 3-4; claim 31, lines 3-4; claim 32, lines 3-4; and claim 33, lines 3-4 claim all either recite “an average transmittance […] of the bokeh filter membrane” or “ an average reflectance […] of the bokeh filter membrane”. However, it is not precisely clear whether or not this refers to the reflectance and transmittance of the filter alone – i.e. without the substrate that Applicant had explicitly excluded from the bokeh membrane filter itself in the earlier claims 1 and 26. For examination purposes, these two limitations shall be interpreted to mean “an average transmittance […] of the substrate with the bokeh membrane filter” and “an average reflectance […] of the substrate with the bokeh membrane filter”, respectively and as apparently intended.
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 1-2, 5-18, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20180372918 A1) in view of Yoshihiro et al (US 20170343705 A1, hereinafter “Yoshihiro”).
Regarding claim 1, Koga discloses (see FIGs. 1-3(A-C); ¶s 35-40, 93-96, 123-129; and Table 1 regarding Koga’s “First Example”) a bokeh filter membrane (comprising absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14), which is disposed on a surface of a substrate (11), comprising:
a gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13); and
an anti-reflection membrane comprising a high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate/surface layers 12/14; see Table 1 for alternating refractive indices);
wherein a transmittance through a center of the substrate with the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is greater than a transmittance through a peripheral region of the substrate with the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) (as shown in FIG. 3C; compare transmittances for 0 nm and 1000 nm film thicknesses, corresponding to center and peripheral regions, respectively, per FIGs. 1-2);
wherein the high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate/surface layers 12/14) comprises a first high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 12) and a second high-and-low refraction membrane (surface layer 14), the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is farther away from the substrate (11) than the first high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 12), the second high-and-low refraction membrane (surface layer 14) is farther away from the substrate (11) than the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13).
Koga does not disclose:
an anti-reflection membrane comprising a gradient refraction membrane;
wherein the gradient refraction membrane is farther away from the substrate than the second high-and-low refraction membrane;
wherein the gradient refraction membrane comprises a plurality of pores, and the pores away from the substrate are relatively larger than the pores close to the substrate;
wherein a main material of the gradient refraction membrane is metal oxide;
wherein a membrane thickness of the gradient refraction membrane is TNG, and the following condition is satisfied:
nm ≤ TNG ≤ 1000.0 nm.
Koga and Yoshihiro commonly relate to antireflective optical films.
Yoshihiro discloses (see FIG. 1A, ¶s 101-114):
an anti-reflection membrane (antireflection film 3) comprising a gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10);
wherein the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is farther away from the substrate (2) than the second high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 5);
wherein the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) comprises a plurality of pores, and the pores away from the substrate (2) are relatively larger than the pores close to the substrate (2) (Note from ¶ 105: "The distance between the protrusions of the uneven structure layer 10 is a distance between the apexes of the most adjacent protrusions with a recess[i.e. a pore] interposed therebetween", "The uneven structure layer 10 has the largest void [i.e. pore]... on the surface side being in contact with an air layer, and has a region in which the refractive index is gradually increased from 1.0 in a thickness direction from the surface side in contact with the air layer to the substrate side");
wherein a main material of the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is metal oxide (¶ 104: “The alumina hydrate constituting the uneven structure layer 10 is boehmite [i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide]”) ;
wherein a membrane thickness of the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is TNG, and the following condition is satisfied:
115.0 nm ≤ TNG ≤ 1000.0 nm.
(¶ 104: “The uneven structure layer 10 […] has a film thickness of less than 270 nm”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Koga with Yoshihiro’s uneven structure layer in order to suppress the intensity of scattered light (Yoshihiro ¶s 44-45).
Regarding claim 2, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Yoshihiro further discloses wherein the following condition is satisfied:
118.0 nm ≤ TNG ≤ 350.0 nm.
(¶ 104: “The uneven structure layer 10 […]has a film thickness of less than 270 nm”)
Regarding claim 5, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; ¶s 35-40, 123-129; Table 1) wherein the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) comprises a first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131; Film Number 5 in Table 1) and a second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132; Film Number 6 in Table 1), the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) is farther away from the substrate (11) than the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131), a membrane thickness of the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131) at a maximum effective diameter is Tab1(= 333 nm), a membrane thickness of the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) at the maximum effective diameter is Tab2(= 666 nm), and the following condition is satisfied:
Tab1/Tab2(= 333/666 = 0.5) ≤ 1.80.
Modified Koga, based on the first embodiment (“First Example”) of Koga cited above, thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose a Tab1/Tab2 ratio that directly overlaps with the claimed range:
0.60 ≤ Tab1/Tab2 ≤ 1.80.
Koga, in a second embodiment (“Second Example”), discloses that:
0.60 ≤ Tab1/Tab2 ≤ 1.80.
(See FIGs. 4-5 and ¶ 132: “a ratio between the thicknesses of the first film 231 and the second film 232 of the GND filter is 1:1”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Koga’s different embodiments by adjusting absorption layer widths, in order to tune absorption bands.
Regarding claim 6, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 5.
Koga, in the first embodiment cited above, further discloses (Table 1) wherein a total membrane thickness of the first high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 12) is Tar1(= d(1) + d(2) + d(3) + d(4) = 16.8 nm + 15.9 nm + 17.3 nm + 78.1 nm = 128.1 nm), and the following condition is satisfied:
105.0 nm ≤ Tar1(= 128.1 nm) ≤ 200.0 nm.
Regarding claim 7, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 5.
Koga, in the second embodiment cited above, further discloses (Table 2) wherein a total membrane thickness of the second high-and-low refraction membrane (surface layer 14) is Tar2(= d(7) + d(8) + d(9) = 96.7 nm + 21.4 nm + 15 nm = 133.1 nm), and the following condition is satisfied:
38.0 nm ≤ Tar2(= 133.1 nm) ≤ 150.0 nm.
Regarding claim 8, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) at the center of the substrate (11) is R4070-c (corresponding to when (absorption layer 13’s) film thickness = 0 nm; see FIGs. 1 and 2), and the following condition is satisfied:
0% ≤ R4070-c ≤ 3.00%.
Regarding claim 9, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) at a maximum effective diameter of the substrate (11) is R4070-p (corresponding to when (absorption layer 13’s) film thickness = 1000 nm; see FIGs. 1 and 2), and the following condition is satisfied:
0% ≤ R4070-p ≤ 3.00%.
Regarding claim 10, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, annotated below, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 40 nm to 60 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 500 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R4050-5, and the following condition is satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
687
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 3A of Koga is annotated to mark reflectance values which may be difficult to discern)]0% ≤ R4050-5 ≤ 0.70%.
Regarding claim 11, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, annotated above, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 85 nm to 115 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 450 nm - 550 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R4555-10, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% ≤ R4555-10 ≤ 0.82%.
Regarding claim 12, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 180 nm to 220 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 550 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R5570-20, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% ≤ R5570-20 ≤ 1.10%.
Regarding claim 13, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga does not directly disclose wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane is 450 nm to 550 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane is R4070-50, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%.
However, Koga does disclose (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is {0, 50, 100, 200, and 1000} nm, an average reflectance Ravg in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) satisfies:
0% ≤ Ravg--- ≤ 1.00%.
Koga thus provides direct evidence that total membrane thicknesses, both above and below those claimed (450 nm to 550 nm), will produce average reflectance values that satisfy the claimed range (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%). Based on this data provided in Koga’s FIG. 3A and standard physical/mathematical rationales (e.g. smoothness, and barring exotic circumstances that produce discontinuities or physical anomalies), one would generally expect Koga to produce average reflectances that meet the claimed range (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%) – or at the very least, produce values which do not exceed the claimed range to any significant degree.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the modified Koga may produce the claimed average reflectance values (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%) when the total membrane thickness is 450 nm to 550 nm.
Regarding claim 14, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3C, annotated below, ¶s 123-129) wherein an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) at a maximum effective diameter of the substrate (11) is T4070-p(≈ 2.5%) (corresponding to when (absorption layer 13’s) film thickness = 1000 nm; see FIGs. 1 and 2), and the following condition is satisfied:
PNG
media_image3.png
507
1056
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 3C of Koga is annotated to mark transmittance values which may be difficult to discern)]T4070-p ≤ 3.00%.
Regarding claim 15, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3C, annotated above, ¶s 123-129) wherein an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) at a maximum effective diameter of the substrate (11) is T4070-p(≈ 2.5%) (corresponding to when (absorption layer 13’s) film thickness = 1000 nm; see FIGs. 1 and 2); an average transmittance in the wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) at the center of the substrate (11) is T4070-c(≈ 100%) (corresponding to when (absorption layer 13’s) film thickness = 0 nm; see FIGs. 1 and 2); when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 40 nm to 60 nm, an average transmittance in the wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is T4070-5(≈ 85%); when the total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 180 nm to 220 nm, the average transmittance in the wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is T4070-20(≈ 47.5%); and the following conditions are satisfied:
100 × (T4070-p/T4070-c) (≈ 100 × 2.5/100 = 2.5) ≤ 3.00;
T4070-5/T4070-c (≈ 85/100 = 0.85) ≤ 1.20; and
T4070-20/T4070-c (≈ 47.5/100 = 0.475) ≤ 0.80.
Regarding claim 16, modified Koga discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-160) an imaging optical lens assembly (optical system 70), comprising:
the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1;
at least one optical lens element (“lenses, which are optical elements”); and
at least one optical element (“lenses, which are optical elements”);
wherein at least one surface of the at least one optical lens element and the at least one optical element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (“At least one of the lenses of the optical system 70 is one of the GND filters in the first to fo[u]rth examples.”)
Regarding claim 17, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 16.
Koga also discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-167) the further comprising: an aperture stop (SP), wherein the at least one optical element is located at an object side or an image side of the aperture stop (SP), and at least one surface of the at least one optical element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (¶ 164: “at least one of such GND filters is disposed on the light-incident side of a stop SP”)
Regarding claim 18, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 17.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-167) wherein the at least one optical element comprises a first optical element and a second optical element, the first optical element is located at the object side of the aperture stop (SP), the second optical element is located at the image side of the aperture stop (SP), and at least one surface of the first optical element and at least one surface of the second optical element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (¶ 164: “at least one of such GND filters is disposed on the light-incident side of a stop SP and at least another one is disposed on the light-emission side thereof”)
Regarding claim 21, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 16.
Koga also discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-167) the further comprising: an aperture stop (SP), wherein the at least one optical lens element is located at an object side or an image side of the aperture stop (SP), and at least one surface of the at least one optical lens element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (¶ 164: “at least one of such GND filters is disposed on the light-incident side of a stop SP”)
Regarding claim 22, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 21.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-167) wherein the at least one optical lens element comprises a first optical lens element and a second optical lens element, the first optical lens element is located at the object side of the aperture stop (SP), the second optical lens element is located at the image side of the aperture stop (SP), and at least one surface of the first optical lens element and at least one surface of the second optical lens element comprise the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (¶ 164: “at least one of such GND filters is disposed on the light-incident side of a stop SP and at least another one is disposed on the light-emission side thereof”)
Regarding claim 24, modified Koga discloses (see FIGs. 19(A-B), ¶s 159-171) an imaging apparatus (digital camera 80), comprising:
the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 16; and
an image sensor (imaging element 83 “such as a CCD or CMOS sensor” – ¶ 168) disposed on an image surface (imaging plane IP) of the imaging optical lens assembly (optical system 70).
Regarding claim 25, modified Koga discloses (see FIGs. 19(A-B), ¶s 159-171) an electronic device (digital camera 80), comprising: the imaging apparatus of claim 24.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga in view of Yoshihiro, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kang et al (KR 20020022338, hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 1.
Koga further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; ¶s 35-40, 123-129; Table 1) wherein the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) comprises a first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131; Film Number 5 in Table 1) and a second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132; Film Number 6 in Table 1), the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) is farther away from the substrate (11) than the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131), a refractive index of the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131) is Nab1 (= n(5) = 2.12214), a refractive index of the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) is Nab2 (= n(6) = 2.34189), and the following condition is satisfied:
Nab1(= 2.12214) < Nab2(= 2.34189).
Modified Koga thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not directly disclose that:
Nab1 > Nab2.
Koga and Kang commonly relate to antireflective optical films.
Kang discloses (see FIG. 1, Abstract on pg. 1, and pgs. 7-8 describing FIG. 1) a second absorbing membrane (first absorption layer 5 “having a refractive index of 2 to 3”) that is farther away from the substrate (2) than a first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7 “having a refractive index of 1.5 to 3.5”), and that the following condition is satisfied:
Nab1 > Nab2. (The cited excerpts already show Kang’s Nab1 ranges from 1.5-3.5, while their Nab2 ranges from 2-3, which directly allows for situations where the above-claimed condition is satisfied – but see also Table 6 detailing a Third Example where the first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7) is Cr, and the second absorbing membrane (first absorption layer 5) is Ti. Note from Table 3 that (n(Cr) = Nab1) > (n(Ti) = Nab2) for much of the visible spectrum.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify (the index profile of) Koga with teachings of Kang, in order to manipulate optical properties (e.g. reflection, transmission, absorption profiles) and find better optical performance (see, e.g., Kang Abstract), or to accommodate other obvious variants of Koga (including variations of adjacent optical layers), as is already standard practice in the field (e.g. index-matching, -grading).
Regarding claim 4, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 3.
Koga further discloses wherein the first high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 12) comprises an adjacent membrane layer (Film Number 4 in Table 1), the adjacent membrane layer (Film Number 4 in Table 1) is a layer of the first high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 12) closest to the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131; Film Number 5 in Table 1), the refractive index of the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131; Film Number 5 in Table 1) is Nab1 (= n(5) = 2.12214), a refractive index of the adjacent membrane layer (Film Number 4 in Table 1) is Narn (= n(4) = 2.21365) ), and the following condition is satisfied:
Nab1/Narn(= 2.12214/2.21365 ≈ 0.96) ≤ 2.00.
Kang further discloses an adjacent membrane layer (third dielectric layer 6) that is closest to the first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7), and that the following condition is satisfied:
≤ Nab1/Narn ≤ 2.00.
(See also Table 6 detailing a Third Example where the first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7) is Cr, and the adjacent membrane layer (third dielectric layer 6) is Nb2O5. Note from Tables 1 and 3 that n(Cr)/n(Nb-2O5) = Nab1/Narn = 3.12/2.31 ≈ 1.35 at 550 nm.)
Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga in view of Yoshihiro, as applied respectively to claims 18 and 22 above, and in further view of Ida and Momoki (JP 2016218444 A, hereinafter “Ida”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 18.
Koga does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance along an optical axis between the surface comprising the bokeh filter membrane of the first optical element and the aperture stop is equal to a distance along the optical axis between the aperture stop and the surface comprising the bokeh filter membrane of the second optical element.
Koga and Ida are related as being directed towards apodization filters in optical systems.
Ida discloses (see FIG. 3, ¶ 56, and the table entitled Numerical Example 1) wherein a distance(= d(5) = 8.35 mm) along an optical axis (OA) between the surface (5) comprising the bokeh filter membrane (F1) of the first optical element and the aperture stop (SP) is approximately equal to a distance(= d(6) = 8.91 mm) along the optical axis (OA) between the aperture stop (SP) and the surface (7) comprising the bokeh filter membrane (F2) of the second optical element.
Koga in view of Yoshihiro and Ida thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except where the distances between the aperture stop and bokeh filter membrane of either of the two optical elements are precisely equal to one another. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for such an equality.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Koga with Ida, in order to perform out-of-focus imaging of the luminous flux of the total angle of view, even when vignetting occurs, and improve blurred images (Ida ¶s 53-57, Abstract).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to then modify Koga by making the distances between the aperture stop and bokeh filter membrane of either of two optical elements equal to one another, in order to tune the off-focusing effects – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 22.
Koga does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance along an optical axis between the surface comprising the bokeh filter membrane of the first optical lens element and the aperture stop is equal to a distance along the optical axis between the aperture stop and the surface comprising the bokeh filter membrane of the second optical lens element.
Koga and Ida are related as being directed towards apodization filters in optical systems.
Ida discloses (see FIG. 3, ¶ 56, and the table entitled Numerical Example 1) wherein a distance(= d(5) = 8.35 mm) along an optical axis (OA) between the surface (5) comprising the bokeh filter membrane (F1) of the first optical lens element and the aperture stop (SP) is approximately equal to a distance(= d(6) = 8.91 mm) along the optical axis (OA) between the aperture stop (SP) and the surface (7) comprising the bokeh filter membrane (F2) of the second optical lens element.
Koga in view of Yoshihiro and Ida thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except where the distances between the aperture stop and bokeh filter membrane of either of the two optical lens elements are precisely equal to one another. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for such an equality.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Koga with Ida, in order to perform out-of-focus imaging of the luminous flux of the total angle of view, even when vignetting occurs, and improve blurred images (Ida ¶s 53-57, Abstract).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to then modify Koga by making the distances between the aperture stop and bokeh filter membrane of either of two optical elements equal to one another, in order to tune the off-focusing effects – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga in view of Yoshihiro, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Kamiyama (JP H10268382 A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Koga discloses the imaging optical lens assembly of claim 16.
Koga also discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-167) the further comprising: an aperture stop (SP), wherein at least one surface of the at least one optical element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (¶ 160: “At least one of the lenses of the optical system 70 is one of the GND filters in the first to fo[u]rth examples.”)
Modified Koga does not disclose that the at least one surface is disposed on a position of the aperture stop.
Kamiyama discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; ¶s 13-15, 34-38) that the at least one surface (i.e. bearing filter 15) is disposed on a position of the aperture stop (diaphragm/aperture 8 with filter holding frame 16).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Koga and Kamiyama, so that light far from the optical axis can pass through the filter and produce well-balanced filter effects between the center and periphery of the screen (Kamiyama ¶ 38).
Claims 26-28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20180372918 A1) in view of Yoshihiro et al (US 20170343705 A1, hereinafter “Yoshihiro”).
Regarding claim 26, Koga discloses (see FIGs. 1-3(A-C); ¶s 35-40, 93-96, 123-129; and Table 1 regarding Koga’s “First Example”) a bokeh filter membrane (comprising absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14) which is disposed on a surface of a substrate (11), comprising:
a gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13); and
an anti-reflection membrane comprising a high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate/surface layers 12/14; see Table 1 for alternating refractive indices);
wherein a transmittance through a center of the substrate with the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is greater than a transmittance through a peripheral region of the substrate with the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) (as shown in FIG. 3C; compare transmittances for 0 nm and 1000 nm film thicknesses, corresponding to center and peripheral regions, respectively, per FIGs. 1-2);
wherein the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) comprises a first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131; Film Number 5 in Table 1) and a second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132; Film Number 6 in Table 1), the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) is farther away from the substrate (11) than the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131);
wherein a membrane thickness of the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131) at a maximum effective diameter is Tab1(= 333 nm), a membrane thickness of the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) at the maximum effective diameter is Tab2(= 666 nm), a total membrane thickness of the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 with intermediate/surface layers 12/14) at the maximum effective diameter is TKP(= d(1) + d(2) + … + d(11) = 1305.7 nm, where d(5) + d(6) = 333 nm + 666 nm = 1000 nm at the periphery), the following conditions are satisfied:
Tab1/Tab2(= 333/666 = 0.5) ≤ 1.80; and
nm < TKP(= 1305.7 nm).
Koga does not disclose:
an anti-reflection membrane comprising a gradient refraction membrane;
wherein the gradient refraction membrane is farther away from the substrate than the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane;
wherein the gradient refraction membrane comprises a plurality of pores, and the pores away from the substrate are relatively larger than the pores close to the substrate;
wherein a main material of the gradient refraction membrane is metal oxide;
nor does Koga, in the first embodiment (“First Example”) cited above, disclose a Tab1/Tab2 ratio that directly overlaps with the claimed range:
≤ Tab1/Tab2 ≤ 1.80.
Koga and Yoshihiro are related as being directed towards antireflective optical films.
Yoshihiro discloses (see FIG. 1A, ¶s 101-114):
an anti-reflection membrane (antireflection film 3) comprising a gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10);
wherein the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is farther away from the substrate (2) than the second high-and-low refraction membrane (intermediate layer 5);
wherein the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) comprises a plurality of pores, and the pores away from the substrate (2) are relatively larger than the pores close to the substrate (2)
(Note from ¶ 105: "The distance between the protrusions of the uneven structure layer 10 is a distance between the apexes of the most adjacent protrusions with a recess[i.e. a pore] interposed therebetween", "The uneven structure layer 10 has the largest void [i.e. pore]... on the surface side being in contact with an air layer, and has a region in which the refractive index is gradually increased from 1.0 in a thickness direction from the surface side in contact with the air layer to the substrate side");
wherein a main material of the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is metal oxide (¶ 104: “The alumina hydrate constituting the uneven structure layer 10 is boehmite [i.e. aluminum oxide hydroxide]”);
Moreover, Koga, in a second embodiment (“Second Example”), discloses that:
0.60 ≤ Tab1/Tab2 ≤ 1.80.
(See FIGs. 4-5 and ¶ 132: “a ratio between the thicknesses of the first film 231 and the second film 232 of the GND filter is 1:1”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Koga with Yoshihiro’s uneven structure layer in order to suppress the intensity of scattered light (Yoshihiro ¶s 44-45).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Koga’s different embodiments by adjusting absorption layer widths, in order to tune absorption bands.
Regarding claim 27, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26.
Yoshihiro further discloses wherein a membrane thickness of the gradient refraction membrane (uneven structure layer 10) is TNG, the following condition is satisfied:
115.0 nm ≤ TNG ≤ 1000.0 nm.
(¶ 104: “The uneven structure layer 10 […] has a film thickness of less than 270 nm”)
Regarding claim 28, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 27.
Yoshihiro further discloses wherein the following condition is satisfied:
118.0 nm ≤ TNG ≤ 350.0 nm.
(¶ 104: “The uneven structure layer 10 […] has a film thickness of less than 270 nm”)
Regarding claim 30, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, annotated above, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 40 nm to 60 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 500 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R4050-5, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% < R4050-5 < 0.70%.
Regarding claim 31, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26.
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, annotated above, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 85 nm to 115 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 450 nm - 550 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R4555-10, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% < R4555-10 < 0.82%.
Regarding claim 32, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26
Koga further discloses (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is 180 nm to 220 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 550 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) is R5570-20, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% < R5570-20 < 1.10%.
Regarding claim 33, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26.
Koga does not directly disclose wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane is 450 nm to 550 nm, an average reflectance in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane is R4070-50, and the following condition is satisfied:
0% < R4070-50 < 1.00%.
However, Koga does disclose (see FIG. 3A, ¶s 123-129) wherein when a total membrane thickness of the gradient thickness absorbing membrane (absorption layer 13) is {0, 50, 100, 200, and 1000} nm, an average reflectance Ravg in a wavelength range of 400 nm - 700 nm of the bokeh filter membrane (GND filter 10) satisfies:
0% ≤ Ravg--- ≤ 1.00%.
Koga thus provides direct evidence that total membrane thicknesses, both above and below those claimed (450 nm to 550 nm), will produce average reflectance values that satisfy the claimed range (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%). Based on this data provided in Koga’s FIG. 3A and standard physical/mathematical rationales (e.g. smoothness, and barring exotic circumstances that produce discontinuities or physical anomalies), one would generally expect Koga to produce average reflectances that meet the claimed range (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%) – or at the very least, produce values which do not exceed the claimed range to any significant degree.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the modified Koga may produce the claimed average reflectance values (0% ≤ R4070-50 ≤ 1.00%) when the total membrane thickness is 450 nm to 550 nm.
Regarding claim 34, modified Koga discloses (see FIG. 19A, ¶s 159-160) an imaging optical lens assembly, comprising:
the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26;
at least one optical lens element (“lenses, which are optical elements”); and
at least one optical element (“lenses, which are optical elements”);
wherein at least one surface of the at least one optical lens element and the at least one optical element comprises the bokeh filter membrane (absorption layer 13 and intermediate/surface layers 12/14 of GND filter 10). (“At least one of the lenses of the optical system 70 is one of the GND filters in the first to fo[u]rth examples.”)
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga in view of Yoshihiro, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Kang et al (KR 20020022338, hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Koga discloses the bokeh filter membrane of claim 26.
Koga further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; ¶s 35-40, 123-129; Table 1) wherein a refractive index of the first gradient thickness absorbing membrane (first film 131) is Nab1(= n(5) = 2.12214), a refractive index of the second gradient thickness absorbing membrane (second film 132) is Nab2(= n(6) = 2.34189), and the following condition is satisfied:
Nab1(= 2.12214) < Nab2(= 2.34189).
Modified Koga thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not directly disclose that:
Nab1 > Nab2.
Koga and Kang are related as being directed towards antireflective optical films.
Kang discloses (see FIG. 1, Abstract on pg. 1, and pgs. 7-8 describing FIG. 1) a second absorbing membrane (first absorption layer 5 “having a refractive index of 2 to 3”) that is farther away from the substrate (2) than a first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7 “having a refractive index of 1.5 to 3.5”), and that the following condition is satisfied:
Nab1 > Nab2. (The cited excerpts already show Kang’s Nab1 ranges from 1.5-3.5, while their Nab2 ranges from 2-3, which directly allows for situations where the above-claimed condition is satisfied – but see also Table 6 detailing a Third Example where the first absorbing membrane (second absorption layer 7) is Cr, and the second absorbing membrane (first absorption layer 5) is Ti. Note from Table 3 that (n(Cr) = Nab1) > (n(Ti) = Nab2) for much of the visible spectrum.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify (the index profile of) Koga with teachings of Kang, in order to manipulate optical properties (e.g. reflection, transmission, absorption profiles) and find better optical performance (see, e.g., Kang Abstract), or to accommodate other obvious variants of Koga (including variations of adjacent optical layers), as is already standard practice in the field (e.g. index-matching, -grading).
Conclusion
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights