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 § 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 09-146039 A to Tanaka (cited in Applicant’s March 29, 2024, IDS, a machine translation of the specification is provided with this Office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 3 and its description) an optical laminate comprising: at least two or more optical function layers 9a–9e with visible light transmittance which are laminated (e.g., paragraph [0014] and Figs. 2–3, where light passes through the lenses 7, including antireflection layer 9 formed on the lenses, reasonably suggesting that the optical function layers allow transmittance of visible light), wherein the optical function layers include, a first function layer 9d that includes at least cerium oxide (e.g., paragraph [0020] suggests that in an alternative embodiment, cerium dioxide may be used as the material of films 9b and 9d), has a refractive index in a range of 1.8 or more and 2.6 or less at a wavelength of 550 nm (see table in original, preceding paragraph [0023], 1.86), and has a film thickness in a range of 60 nm or more and 130 nm or less (from table in original, 0.265*550nm/1.86=78nm), and a second function layer 9e that is formed in contact with an upper surface of the first function layer (Fig. 3), has a refractive index in a range of 1.4 or more and 1.6 or less at a wavelength of 550 nm (see table in original, preceding paragraph [0023], 1.46), and has a film thickness in a range of 80 nm or more and 100 nm or less (from table in original, 0.235*550nm/1.46=89nm).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein the second function layer constitutes an uppermost layer of the optical laminate (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein the first function layer contains at least one metal oxide other than cerium oxide in an elemental ratio in a range of 0.1% or more and 50% or less (e.g., where Tanaka also suggests zirconium dioxide and titanium dioxide, and selecting a specific mixing ratio would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein the second function layer contains at least silicon (silicon dioxide, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka would have rendered obvious an anti-reflective film obtained using the optical laminate according to claim 1 (where layer 9 is described as anti-reflective coating).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein the optical laminate is supported by a transparent substrate made of a polymer film with visible light transmittance (e.g., one of plastic lenses 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein an adhesion layer is formed between the optical laminate and the transparent substrate (e.g., where paragraph [0015] discusses issues with adhesion between the plastic lenses 7 and anti-reflective coating 9, reasonably suggesting a need for an adhesion layer or similar).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka would have rendered obvious wherein the first function layer contains at least one metal oxide other than cerium oxide in an elemental ratio in a range of 0.1% or more and 50% or less (e.g., where Tanaka also suggests zirconium dioxide and titanium dioxide, and selecting a specific mixing ratio would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 9, Tanaka would have rendered obvious an anti-reflective film obtained using the optical laminate according to claim 2 (where layer 9 is described as anti-reflective coating).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see the discussion in the Written Opinion of PCT/JP2022/036058 (copy provided by Applicant in the March 29, 2024, IDS) for additional references that provide teachings cumulative to those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights