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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) and 120.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 3/5/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radius of curvature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the clear aperture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 17, line 2- ‘adsorption’ should read ‘absorption’
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0323705 A1) in view of Hilbert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4878744).
Hart et al. discloses an optical element (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-21), comprising an optically transparent element (See for example 110 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0101-0124) comprising a first surface (See for example surface of 110 on which element 120 is attached in Figure 4); and an optical film (See for example 120 in Figure 4) disposed over at least one of the first surface and the second surface (See for example Figures 1, 4; Paragraph 0043), the optical film comprising a first index layer (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index at 550 nm) comprising a first index of refraction for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers, and a second index layer disposed over the first index layer and comprising a magnesium fluoride film and a low index layer (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, wherein 130C may have the same material and refractive index as 130A, such as magnesium fluoride, and 131 may have a refractive index lower than 130B), wherein the second index layer comprises a second index of refraction for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that exemplary materials for these layer inherently have a refractive index at 550 nm), and wherein the second index of refraction is smaller than the first index of refraction (See for example Paragraph 0049; It is noted that the refractive indices of both 131 and 130C may be less than that of 130B, and hence the refractive index of the combined 131/130C will be less than that of 130B). Hart et al. further discloses the optical film comprises a plurality of first index layers and a plurality of second index layers (See for example 131, 130C, 130B, 130A in Figure 4); the optical film is disposed on both the first surface and the second surface of the optically transparent lens (See for example Figures 1, 4; Paragraph 0043); the first index layer is in an innermost layer of the optical film that is in contact with the optically transparent lens and the low index layer is an outermost layer of the optical film (See for example 131, 130B, 110 in Figure 4); the first index of refraction is about 1.6 or more for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index greater than 1.6 at 550 nm); the first index of refraction is in a range from about 1.6 to about 2.0 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index between 1.6 and 2.0 at 550 nm); the second index of refraction is about 1.38 or less for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that magnesium fluoride inherently has a refractive index less than 1.38 at 550 nm); the second index of refraction is in a range from about 1.2 to about 1.38 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that magnesium fluoride inherently has a refractive index between 1.2 and 1.38 at 550 nm); the first index of refraction is in a range from about 1.6 to about 2.0 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers and the second index of refraction is in a range from about 1.2 to about 1.38 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index between 1.6 and 2.0 at 550 nm; see also for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that magnesium fluoride inherently has a refractive index between 1.2 and 1.38 at 550 nm); the magnesium fluoride film has a refractive index in a range from about 1.42 to about 1.38 for light having a wavelength of 266 nanometers (See for example 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that magnesium fluoride inherently has a refractive index between 1.42 and 1.38 at 266 nm); the first index layer comprises aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, gadolinium fluoride, lanthanum fluoride, or a combination thereof (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index at 550 nm); the first index layer has thickness in a range from about 250 nanometers to about 100 nanometers (See for example Paragraphs 0053-0054); the low index layer comprises magnesium fluoride, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, or lithium fluoride, or a combination thereof (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, wherein 130C may have the same material and refractive index as 130A, such as magnesium fluoride, and 131 may have a refractive index lower than 130B); the low index layer has a thickness in a range from about 25 nanometers to about 100 nanometers (See for example Paragraphs 0053-0054); the magnesium fluoride film has a thickness in a range from about 25 nanometers to about 100 nanometers (See for example Paragraphs 0053-0054); and the optical film is disposed on both the first surface and the second surface of the optically transparent lens (See for example Figures 1, 4; Paragraph 0043), the first index layer is in an innermost layer of the optical film that is in contact with the optically transparent lens and the low index layer is an outermost layer of the optical film (See for example 131, 130B, 110 in Figure 4), and the first index of refraction is in a range from about 1.6 to about 2.0 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 130B in Figure 4; Paragraph 0052, it is noted that exemplary materials for this layer such as aluminum oxide and hafnium oxide inherently have a refractive index between 1.6 and 2.0 at 550 nm) and the second index of refraction is in a range from about 1.2 to about 1.38 for light having a wavelength of 550 nanometers (See for example 131, 130C in Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, it is noted that magnesium fluoride inherently has a refractive index between 1.2 and 1.38 at 550 nm).
Hart et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the optical transparent element being a lens with a first surface having a steepness value in a range of 0.5 to 1.0 and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the steepness value is equal to the radius of curvature of the first surface divided by the clear aperture of the optically transparent lens. However, the use of antireflection films in lens systems is conventional and well-known in the art. For example, Hilbert et al. teaches a conventional lens system (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-9), wherein each surface of each lens utilized in the lens system includes magnesium fluoride or other antireflective coatings (See for example Figures 3, 5, 7; col. 4, lines 38-40). Additionally, steepness values of lenses surfaces used in various lens systems varies wildly depending on the optical prescription required for each lens in the lens system. For example, Hilbert et al. teaches the use of a lens with a surface having a steepness in a range of 0.5 to 1.0 (See for example col. 8, line 45-69; Element 1, where R2 is 7.073, CA2 is 7.600, steepness of lens surface is 0.931). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical transparent element of Hart et al., be a lens with a first surface having a steepness value in a range of 0.5 to 1.0 and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the steepness value is equal to the radius of curvature of the first surface divided by the clear aperture of the optically transparent lens, as taught by Hilbert et al., for the purpose of 1) reducing or minimizing stray light reflection in the optical system, and 2) allowing for adjustment of the optical prescription of each lens surface based on the intended application of each lens and the overall lens system.
Claim(s) 19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al. as applied to Claims 1-16 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (JP 2007-264499 A).
Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the magnesium fluoride film comprising a surface roughness (Ra) of 1.5 nanometers or less. However, Saito et al. teaches a conventional optical device in the form of a pellicle having a magnesium fluoride antireflection film (See for example Abstract), wherein the optical properties of the magnesium fluoride film are controlled during film deposition to achieve a mean surface roughness of 1 to 8 nm while maximizing the transmission throughput of the film. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the magnesium fluoride film of Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al., comprise a surface roughness (Ra) of 1.5 nanometers or less, as taught by Saito et al., to minimize light scattering from the surface of the magnesium fluoride film, thus allowing for maximum light transmission through the magnesium fluoride film.
Claim(s) 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al. as applied to Claims 1-16 above, and further in view of Haisma et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4731558).
Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the magnesium fluoride film comprising a thickness variation of 10% or less. However, Haisma et al. teaches a known viewing screen device (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-6) utilizing a magnesium fluoride anti-reflection coating (See for example 9 in Figures 2b-2d). In particular, Haisma et al. teaches that such magnesium fluoride film is deposited on the screen surface in such a way that the film is of uniform thickness (i.e. it has not thickness variation) (See for example col. 2, lines 11-25, 35-49). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the magnesium fluoride film of Hart et al. in view of Hilbert et al., comprise a thickness variation of 10% or less, as taught by Haisma et al., such that further processing on the magnesium fluoride film does not inherit any surface defects that may come about due to unwanted film thickness variations, which may lead to reduced optical performance of the overall film structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
11/5/2025
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872