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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 6/13/2024. 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.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-17 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 ‘a refractive index ranging from 1.0 to 1.37’ (emphasis added) in lines 4-5. As understood by the Examiner, this numerical range is read as a refractive index ranging from greater than or equal to 1.0 and less than or equal to 1.37. This appears to be problematic, since only a vacuum has a perfect refractive index of 1.0 since vacuum contains no matter and thus allows light to travel at its absolute maximum speed. Applicants have not established that the claimed subject matter can actually achieve a refractive index of exactly 1.0. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘a refractive index ranging from greater than 1.0 to less than or equal to 1.37’.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation ‘the refractive index’ in line 5. However, Claim 1, line 4 recites ‘a refractive index’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the refractive index in Claim 2 is to refer to the metal organic skeleton plating film layer refractive index of Claim 1, the high refractive index material layer refractive index in Claim 2, or to a separate, unique refractive index not previously recited. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘a high refractive index’. Correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation ‘the refractive index’ in line 6. However, Claim 1, line 4 recites ‘a refractive index’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the refractive index in Claim 2 is to refer to the metal organic skeleton plating film layer refractive index of Claim 1, the low refractive index material layer refractive index in Claim 2, or to a separate, unique refractive index not previously recited. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘a low refractive index’. Correction is required.
Claim 2, line 7- ‘to1.8.’ should read ‘to 1.8.’.
Claims 3-17 are dependent on Claim 2, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 2.
Claim 8, line 4- ‘than3nm.’ should read ‘than 3nm.’.
Claims 9-15 are dependent on Claim 8, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 8.
Claim 9 includes the abbreviations ‘IRMOFs’, ‘ZIFs’, ‘CLPs’, ‘MILs’, ‘PCNs’, and ‘UiO’ in line 2. The full, unabbreviated word or phrase must be included the first time an abbreviation is used.
Claims 10-15 are dependent on Claim 9, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 9.
Claim 16, line 2- ‘to720nm’ should read ‘to 720nm’.
Claim 16 recites the limitations ‘a transmittance of ≥90%’ in line 2 and ‘a transmittance of ≥95%’ in line 3. As recited in Claim 16, it is not clear which wavelength ranges each of these transmittances belong to. For purposes of examination, Claim 16 has been taken to be ‘16. The optical lens as described in claim 2, wherein the optical lens has a reflectivity of ≤1% and a transmittance of >90% at a wavelength ranging from 380nm to 720nm, and a reflectivity of ≤0.5% and a transmittance of ≥95% at a wavelength ranging from 420nm to 680nm.’.
Claim 17, line 2 recites ‘a substrate’. However, Claim 1, line 1 also recites ‘a substrate’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the substrate in Claim 17 is to refer to that in Claim 1, or to a separate, unique substrate not previously recited. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘the substrate’. Correction is required.
Claim 17, line 3 recites ‘a dielectric film’. However, Claim 2, lines 1-2 also recites ‘a dielectric film’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the film in Claim 17 is to refer to that in Claim 2, or to a separate, unique film not previously recited. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘the dielectric film’. Correction is required.
Claim 17, line 4 recites ‘a metal organic skeleton plating film layer’. However, Claim 1, line 3 also recites ‘a metal organic skeleton plating film layer’. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the layer in Claim 17 is to refer to that in Claim 1, or to a separate, unique layer not previously recited. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been taken to be ‘the metal organic skeleton plating film layer’. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chacko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2025/0115770 A1).
Chacko et al. discloses an optical lens (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-14; Paragraph 0055, one or more micro lenses, a lens body), comprising a substrate (See for example Figures 1, 12-13; Paragraph 0044, substrate); and a film layer (See for example Figures 1, 12-13; Paragraph 0044, MOF composition for forming a low-RI film onto substrate) arranged on one side or two opposite sides of the substrate; wherein the film layer comprises a metal organic skeleton plating film layer (See for example Paragraphs 0025, 0044, low-RI film made of MOF (metal organic framework) composition in a solvent system) attached to the substrate, and the metal organic skeleton plating film layer has a refractive index ranging from greater than 1.0 to less than or equal to 1.37 (See for example Paragraph 0054).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 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.
Claims 2-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical lens as generally set forth in Claims 1-2, the lens including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1-2, the film layer further comprises a dielectric film sandwiched between the substrate and the metal organic skeleton plating film layer, and the dielectric film comprises a high refractive index material layer and a low refractive index material layer. Claims 3-17 are dependent on Claim 2, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 2 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0335366 A1 to de Oliveira et al.- Anti-reflection coating formed from metal-organic framework for generating a porous low-refractive index layer.
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
6/15/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights