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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“…the coating film layer is formed of a coating material the same as a coating material used for a defect evaluation target.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities, and should be:
“…wherein a color of the coating film layer is same as a color of a coating material used for a defect evaluation target.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6 and 8-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino (JP 2009-180674, cited on Applicant’s IDS, full translation attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a reference sample 1 (see par. [0029]) for coating defects [0029], comprising: a substrate that has a surface on which one or a plurality of pseudo defective portions 11a-c and 12a-c [0036] having a convex and/or concave shape are formed (as shown in Figs. 1-5); and a coating film layer that is formed to cover at least the pseudo defective portion and a peripheral portion of the pseudo defective portion (i.e. “a hard coat or an antireflection film is formed on the optical surfaces 1a and 1b by a post-process after molding as necessary” – [0034]; also see Fig. 7 and par. [0058]-[0059]).
The apparatus of Makino, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 2, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) the coating film layer is formed of a coating material the same as a coating material used for a defect evaluation target (i.e. the coating is the same hard coat or an antireflection film that would be used in on a lens of an actual product: [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a color of the coating film layer is same as a color of a coating material used for a defect evaluation target (i.e. the coating is the same hard coat or an antireflection film that would be used in on a lens of an actual product: [0059] – therefore it would implicitly be the same color).
Regarding claim 6, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a defective region of the pseudo defective portion 11a-c and 12a-c is determined based on an inclination angle (as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]) in a section of the pseudo defective portion (i.e. the inclined sides of the protrusions: as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) the pseudo defective portion is formed by machining the substrate [0055]-[0056].
Regarding claim 10, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) the pseudo defective portion is processed by moving a tool linearly (implicit: [0056]) and by moving the tool in a direction parallel to a previous moving direction when the tool is shifted to a next processing position (i.e. when the next defect sample is to be made: [0056]).
Regarding claim 11, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a resin substrate 51 (see pars. [0033] and [0049]) that has a surface on which one or a plurality of pseudo defective portions having a convex and/or concave shape are formed (as shown in Figs. 1-5) is produced by resin molding [0049] using a mold that has a surface on which one or a plurality of concave and/or convex portions for forming a pseudo defect (as shown in Fig. 6; [0058]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a defective region of the pseudo defective portion 11a-c and 12a-c is determined based on an inclination angle (as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]) in a section of the pseudo defective portion (i.e. the inclined sides of the protrusions: as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]).
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 4-5, 7, 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (JP 2009-180674) in view of Jingu (U.S. Pub. 2017/0268870).
Regarding claims 4-5, 12, and 14, Makino is applied as above, but does not disclose the pseudo defective portion includes a plurality of pseudo defective portions for which at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is different; and at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is changed in a geometric progression manner among the plurality of pseudo defective portions.
Jingu discloses (Figs. 2-6) the pseudo defective portion includes a plurality of pseudo defective portions 301 [0028] for which at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is different (as shown in Fig. 6; see pars. [0054]-[0055]); and at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is changed in a geometric progression manner (in the patterns sown in Figs. 2 and 5; [0044]-[0045]) among the plurality of pseudo defective portions 301.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Makino’s device so that the pseudo defective portion includes a plurality of pseudo defective portions for which at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is different; and at least one of a diameter, a height and/or a depth, and an inclination angle in plan view is changed in a geometric progression manner among the plurality of pseudo defective portions, as taught by Jingu.
Such a modification would be merely a change in shape of the defect portions, which is obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); and would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 7, Makino is applied as above, but does not disclose in a section of the pseudo defective portion having a convex shape, a protruding portion with a boundary on which an absolute value of inclination angle is 0.5 degrees is defined as a defective region, and in a section of the pseudo defective portion having a concave shape, a recessed portion with a boundary on which an absolute value of inclination angle is 0.5 degrees is defined as a defective region.
However, Jingu discloses a section of the pseudo defective portion having a convex shape (Fig. 6); and a section of the pseudo defective portion having a concave shape (Fig. 6); and also discloses that the shape/angle of inclination of the shapes is a results-effective variable that can be optimized in order to more stably/accurately detect the defects (see pars. [0052]-[0053]).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Makino’s device so that in a section of the pseudo defective portion having a convex shape, a protruding portion with a boundary on which an absolute value of inclination angle is 0.5 degrees is defined as a defective region, and in a section of the pseudo defective portion having a concave shape, a recessed portion with a boundary on which an absolute value of inclination angle is 0.5 degrees is defined as a defective region, as taught by Jingu and MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Makino discloses (Figs. 1-7) a defective region of the pseudo defective portion 11a-c and 12a-c is determined based on an inclination angle (as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]) in a section of the pseudo defective portion (i.e. the inclined sides of the protrusions: as shown in Figs. 1-5; [0044]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lanrdu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0069865) discloses a test component with defects formed in the coating (see Fig. 4; par. [0088]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852