DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 2006/0154044).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an optical element (Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (1); and
an antireflection film (2),
wherein the antireflection film consists of a first layer (21) formed on the substrate (1), and a second layer (22) formed on the first layer (21),
wherein the first layer (21) and the second layer (22) each include an organic compound (paras. [0012-0013, 0027, 0030, 0051]), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.30 ≤ n1 ≤ 1.70 (paras. [0084])
1.10 ≤ n2 ≤ 1.26 (paras. [0027, 0087])
−0.2 ≤ (ns−1) − 2(n1−n2) ≤ 0.2 (paras. [0023, 0084, 0087])
100 ≤ n1d1 ≤ 155 (para. [0084])
100 ≤ n2d2 ≤ 155 (para. [0087])
where ns is a refractive index of the substrate at a wavelength of 550 nm, n1 is a refractive index of the first layer at a wavelength of 550 nm, n2 is a refractive index of the second layer at a wavelength of 550 nm, d1 (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer, and d2 (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer (paras. [0083-0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
1.12 ≤ n2 ≤ 1.22 (paras. [0027, 0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada discloses wherein the second layer (22) includes a void (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Yamada discloses wherein the second layer (22) includes at least one of a solid particle, a chain particle, or a hollow particle (Fig. 1), and wherein the second layer includes at least one of a solid particle made of silica, a chain particle made of silica, or a hollow particle made of silica (paras. [0031, 0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada discloses wherein the first layer (21) includes a polyimide resin (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada discloses wherein the first layer (21) includes an epoxy resin (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada discloses wherein the first layer (21) includes an acrylic resin (para. [0030]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Yamada discloses wherein the first layer (21) includes a solid particle, and wherein the first layer includes a solid particle made of silica (para. [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada discloses wherein a surface of the second layer (22) is provided with an antifouling layer including a fluororesin (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
1.50 ≤ ns ≤ 2.10 (para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada discloses an optical system comprising a plurality of optical elements, wherein the plurality of optical elements includes the optical element (Fig. 1) according to claim 1 (paras. [0003-0004, 0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising:
an optical system including the optical element (Fig. 1) according to claim 1; and
an image sensor (paras. [0004, 0009]) configured to capture an image of an object via the optical system.
Regarding claim 19, Yamada discloses an optical apparatus (para. [0009]) comprising the optical element (Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2006/0154044), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 2010/0053760).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 1.0 < d1q/d1c ≤ 1.3; 1.0 < d2q/d2c ≤ 1.3, where d1c (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d2c (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d1q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface, and d2q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface.
However, Uchida discloses an optical element (Fig. 1),
wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film (12+13) has a rotationally symmetrical axis (para. [0030]), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.0 < d1q/d1c ≤ 1.3 (Tables 1-2)
1.0 < d2q/d2c ≤ 1.3 (Tables 1-2)
where d1c (nm) (Dc) is a physical film thickness of the first layer (12) at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d2c (nm) (Ds) is a physical film thickness of the second layer (13) at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d1q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface, and d2q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 1.0 < d1q/d1c ≤ 1.3; 1.0 < d2q/d2c ≤ 1.3, where d1c (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d2c (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer at an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis, d1q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the first layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface, and d2q (nm) is a physical film thickness of the second layer at a most distant position from the intersection within an optically effective area on the optical surface, as in Uchida, into the optical element of Yamada to achieve very good anti-reflection performance not only at a central part of the optical surface but also at a peripheral part.
Regarding claim 4, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein when an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis is an optical axis center and the optical axis center has a half-open angle of 0 degrees, which is a reference of the optical surface, a half-open angle φ (degrees) at a maximum effective diameter of the optical surface satisfies the following inequality: 25 ≤ φ < 90.
However, Uchida discloses wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film (12+13) has a rotationally symmetrical axis (para. [0030]), and
wherein when an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis is an optical axis center and the optical axis center has a half-open angle of 0 degrees, which is a reference of the optical surface (Fig. 1), a half-open angle φ (degrees) at a maximum effective diameter of the optical surface satisfies the following inequality:
25 ≤ φ < 90 (Tables 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein when an intersection of the optical surface and the rotationally symmetrical axis is an optical axis center and the optical axis center has a half-open angle of 0 degrees, which is a reference of the optical surface, a half-open angle φ (degrees) at a maximum effective diameter of the optical surface satisfies the following inequality: 25 ≤ φ < 90, as in Uchida, into the optical element of Yamada to form the anti-reflection film on a curved surface, as in a lens.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose wherein in each of the first layer and the second layer, a film thickness is the smallest at the optical axis center and the film thickness increases as a distance from the optical axis center increases.
However, Uchida discloses wherein in each of the first layer (12) and the second layer (13), a film thickness is the smallest at the optical axis center and the film thickness increases as a distance from the optical axis center increases (Fig. 1; Tables 1-2; para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein in each of the first layer and the second layer, a film thickness is the smallest at the optical axis center and the film thickness increases as a distance from the optical axis center increases, as in Uchida, into the optical element of Yamada to achieve very good anti-reflection performance not only at a central part of the optical surface but also at a peripheral part.
Regarding claim 14, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm, a reflectance at an intersection of the optical surface of the antireflection film and the rotationally symmetrical axis is 0.5% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees and 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 30 degrees.
However, Uchida discloses wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film (12+13) has a rotationally symmetrical axis (para. [0030]), and
wherein in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm (para. [0059]), a reflectance at an intersection of the optical surface of the antireflection film and the rotationally symmetrical axis is 0.5% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees and 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 30 degrees (Tables 1-2; para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein an optical surface forming the antireflection film has a rotationally symmetrical axis, and wherein in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm, a reflectance at an intersection of the optical surface of the antireflection film and the rotationally symmetrical axis is 0.5% or less at an incident angle of 0 degrees and 1.0% or less at an incident angle of 30 degrees, as in Uchida, into the optical element of Yamada to achieve very good anti-reflection performance not only at a central part of the optical surface but also at a peripheral part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871