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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claims 1 and 5 have been considered, but are not persuasive. The new ground of rejection cites NAKAMURA WO 2015159592A1 (by change at least the rejection the second coating (total first 3 layers in table 2 or total first 2 layers in table 2 for wavelength shift coat SC) instead of total 4 layers in table 2) as teaching the amended claim limitations in claims 1 and 5.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 7, “a thickness the first coating” should be “a thickness of the first coating”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAKAMURA WO 2015159592A1 (see document of 18565835_2025-11-05_WO_2015159592_A1_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAMURA discloses a lens module, in at least figs.5-11, comprising N lenses disposed sequentially from an object side to an image side thereof (see figs.5, 8 and 10), wherein the N lenses include:
a plurality of first coated lenses (L1 and L2 in fig.5, L1-L3 in fig.8, or L1-L4 in fig.10) in which a first coating (normal coat NC) is applied to at least one surface thereof; and
a plurality of second coated lenses (L3 and L4 in fig.5, L4-L5 in fig.8, or L5-L6 in fig.10) in which a second coating (wavelength shift coat SC) is applied to at least one surface thereof,
wherein the plurality of first coated lenses are a first lens (L1) and a second lens (L2) among the N lenses (see figs.5, 8 and 10),
wherein the plurality of second coated lenses are the remaining lenses among the N lenses except for the first lens and the second lens (see figs.5, 8 and 10),
wherein the first lens is disposed closest to the object side (see figs.5, 8 and 10),
wherein a thickness of the first coating (total 4 layers in table 3 for normal coat NC) is greater than a thickness of the second coating (total first 3 layers in table 2 for wavelength shift coat SC)(see tables 2 and 3), and
the plurality of first coated lenses are lenses in which an angle (θ) between a line at a predetermined angle with respect to an optical axis and a normal line of a point at which the line comes into contact with an object side surface is 50° or more (see figs.5, 8 and 10, a predetermined angle can be any angle such as about 90°, so that an angle (θ) can be 50° or more).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAMURA discloses a difference between the thickness of the first coating and the thickness of the second coating is 10% or more of the thickness of the second coating (see tables 2 and 3, the thicknesses of the first coating is 253, the thicknesses of the second coating is 197, so the difference is 28.42%).
Regarding claim 4, NAKAMURA discloses the first coating is applied to the object side surface and an image side surface of at least one of the plurality of first coated lenses (see figs.5, 8 and 10, page 9, 2nd paragraph), and the second coating is applied to an object side surface and an image side surface of at least one of the plurality of second coated lenses (see figs.5, 8 and 10 and page 4, last line to page 5 first line discloses the second coating is applied to both surfaces of the lens closest to the image side).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAMURA discloses a lens module, in at least figs.5-11, comprising N lenses disposed sequentially from an object side to an image side thereof (see figs.5, 8 and 10), wherein the N lenses include:
a first coated lens (L1 or L2 in fig.5, L1, L2 or L3 in fig.8, or L1, L2, L3 or L4 in fig.10) to which a first coating (total 3 layers in table 3 for normal coat NC) is applied; and
a second coated lens (L3 or L4 in fig.5, L4 or L5 in fig.8, or L5 or L6 in fig.10) to which a second coating (total first 2 layers in table 2 for wavelength shift coat SC) is applied,
wherein the first coated lens is disposed closest to the object side (see figs.5, 8 and 10),
wherein a thickness of the first coating is greater than a thickness of the second coating (see tables 2 and 3),
wherein the first coating includes a first layer (1) to an Xth layer (3) disposed sequentially on a surface of a lens (see table 3),
wherein the second coating includes a first layer (1) to a Yth layer (2) disposed sequentially on a surface of a lens (see table 2),
wherein the first layer has the smallest thickness among the first layer to the Xth layer in the first coating (see table 3),
wherein the first layer has the smallest thickness among the first layer to the Yth layer in the second coating (see table 2), and
wherein a thickness (124nm) of the Xth layer of the first coating is greater than a thickness (34nm) of the Yth layer of the second coating (see tables 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, NAKAMURA discloses a thickness (29nm) of an (X−1)th layer of the first coating is greater than a thickness (17nm) of a (Y−1)th layer of the second coating (see tables 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, NAKAMURA discloses a difference between the thickness of the first coating and the thickness of the second coating is 10% or more of the thickness of the second coating (see tables 2 and 3, the thicknesses of the first coating is 168, the thicknesses of the second coating is 51, so the difference is 229.41%).
Regarding claim 12, NAKAMURA discloses an object side surface and an image side surface of the first coated lens include the first coating (see figs.5, 8 and 10, page 9, 2nd paragraph), and an object side surface and an image side surface of the second coated lens include the second coating (see figs.5, 8 and 10 and page 4, last line to page 5 first line discloses the second coating is applied to both surfaces of the lens closest to the image side).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAMURA WO 2015159592A1 (see document of 18565835_2025-11-05_WO_2015159592_A1_M.pdf) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less.
However, NAKAMURA discloses the first anti-reflective coating and the second anti-reflective coating are four-layers structures with different layer thicknesses which means these two anti-reflective coatings have different transmittance at different incident angles.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less because these two anti-reflective coatings having different thickness, since The Applicant has not disclosed that a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less because these two anti-reflective coatings having different thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the other transmittance relationship between two coatings for the purpose of increasing light transmittance of the lens module.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAMURA WO 2015159592A1 (see document of 18565835_2025-11-05_WO_2015159592_A1_M.pdf) as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, NAKAMURA does not explicitly disclose a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less.
However, NAKAMURA discloses the first anti-reflective coating and the second anti-reflective coating are four-layers structures with different layer thicknesses which means these two anti-reflective coatings have different transmittance at different incident angles.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less because these two anti-reflective coatings having different thickness, since The Applicant has not disclosed that a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more is higher than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 50° or more, and a transmittance of the first coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less is lower than a transmittance of the second coating at an angle of incidence of 0° or more and 40° or less because these two anti-reflective coatings having different thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the other transmittance relationship between two coatings for the purpose of increasing light transmittance of the lens module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “a value of the X and a value of the Y are the same”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 9-11 are depended on claim 8 so they are allowable for the same reason.
NAKAMURA WO 2015159592A1, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “a value of the X and a value of the Y are the same”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 9-11 are depended on claim 8 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 H 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871