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 amendments filed 06/15/2026 have been entered.
Applicant amended “phosphor-containing to phosphorous-containing”; however, this amendment does not change the substance of the claimed limitation because claim 1 continues to define the compound by the same Formulas 2 to 4 and continues to require only “at least one” such compound. The claim therefore does not require that the prior art teach every compound represented by each of Formulas 2, 3 and 4. The instant claim still recites the copper complex, phosphonic acid of Formula 1, and at least one phosphorous-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Mun, Devlin, Takagi, Kim, Kubo, Tsou and Shino fail to disclose or teach the specific copper complex as defined in the present application”. Applicant argues that “Mun, Devlin and Kim do not disclose a filter containing a near-infrared absorbing material”. Applicant argues that “Shino does not disclose the claimed copper complex instead discloses a squarylium dye”. Applicant argues that “Takagi is silent regarding Formulas 2, 3 and 4 of the present application and does not disclose the claimed substituents”. Applicant argues that “Kubo does not teach Formula 2, Formula 3, or Formula 4 of the present application, and that Kubo merely discloses a generic phosphoric ester. Applicants argument is not persuasive”. Applicant argues that “Kubo’s phosphoric acid ester preferably contains a polyoxyalkyl group, whereas the claim recites substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl groups”. Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have lacked motivation to prepare the copper complex using the claimed phosphorous containing compounds because the cited compounds allegedly have significant difference chemical structures”. Applicant argues that “Mun, Devlin, Takagi, Kim, Kubo, Tsou and Shino fail to disclose the claimed OD value of the first light absorption layer for an incident light wavelength of 930-950nm being greater than 4”. Applicant argues that “Thou cannot remedy the deficiency because Tsou allegedly related to a multilayer/interference filter rather than an absorption type filter”. Applicant argues that “the claimed OD value corresponds to less than 0.01% transmittance and that the cited references do not teach the same “high standard” OD value”. Applicant argues that “the present application is superior to the cited references”. Applicant argues that “the “technical essence” of the present invention lies in integrating various independent optical components including lenses and filters into an integrated, single piece component”. Applicant argues that “the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons argued with respect to the independent claim 1”.
Regarding applicants argument that Mun, Devlin, Takagi, Kim, Kubo, Tsou and Shino fail to disclose or teach the specific copper complex as defined in the present application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on each reference for the same teaching. Mum is relied up for the integrated lens module structure. Devlin is relied upon for the optical bonding/adhesive layer. Takagi and Kim are relied upon for absorption layers disposed in the optical device. Kubo is relied upon for the copper-complex light absorber including a copper component, phosphonic acid, and a phosphorous-containing ester compound. Tsou is relied upon for the claimed optical density in the near-infrared wavelength range. Shino is relied upon for the second absorption layer including infrared and ultraviolet absorption dyes. Thus, Applicant’s argument is directed to the references individually and do not address the combined teachings relied upon in this rejection.
Regarding applicants argument that Mun, Devlin and Kim do not disclose a filter containing a near-infrared absorbing material. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Mun, Devlin, and Kim are not relied upon for the specific near-infrared absorbing copper complex. The rejection relies upon Kubo for the near-infrared light absorbing copper-complex chemistry. Therefore, the absence of the specific copper complex in Mun, Devlin or Kim does not overcome the rejection.
Regarding applicants argument that Shino does not disclose the claimed copper complex instead discloses a squarylium dye. Applicants argument is not persuasive because Shino is not relied upon for the copper complex of the first absorption layer. Shino is relied upon for teaching that an absorption layer may include both an infrared absorption dye and an ultraviolet absorption dye, as recited for the second absorption layer. The copper complex limitation of the first absorption layer is addressed by Kubo, not Shino.
Regarding applicants argument that Takagi is silent regarding Formulas 2, 3 and 4 of the present application and does not disclose the claimed substituents. Applicants argument is not persuasive. Takagi is not relied upon for the specified phosphorous containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4. Takagi is relied upon for teaching the first and second light absorbing layers in an optical filter device. The specific copper/phosphonic acid/phosphorous containing compound chemistry is addressed by Kubo. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding Takagi’s failure to disclose the specific Formula 2 to 4 chemistry does not overcome the rejection.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo does not teach Formula 2, Formula 3, or Formula 4 of the present application, and that Kubo merely discloses a generic phosphoric ester. Applicants argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “at least one” phosphorous-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4. Accordingly, the prior art need not teach each of Formulas 2, 3 and 4 individually. Kubo teaches a light absorber including a copper component, phosphonic acid, and phosphoric acid ester. Kubo further teaches that the phosphoric acid ester may be used with the copper component in the light absorber. Thus, Kubo teaches or at least suggests the use of phosphorous-containing ester compound corresponding to at least one of the claimed Formula 2 to 4 compounds.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo’s phosphoric acid ester preferably contains a polyoxyalkyl group, whereas the claim recites substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl groups. Applicants argument is not persuasive because the claim is broad and only requires at least one phosphorous containing compound represent by Formulas 2 to 4. Kubo’s disclosure is not limited only to the specific preferred examples identified by Applicant. Further, the selection of known alkyl or aryl substituent groups for a phosphorous containing ester compound used in an optical absorber layer would have been routine selection of known substituent groups for obtaining compatibility, solubility, dispersion and optical absorption performance. Applicant has not shown that the particular claimed substituent range provides unexpected results or criticality over the phosphorous containing ester chemistry taught or suggested by Kubo.
Regarding applicants argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have lacked motivation to prepare the copper complex using the claimed phosphorous containing compounds because the cited compounds allegedly have significant difference chemical structures. Applicants argument is not persuasive. Kubo already teaches copper containing light absorber chemistry including phosphonic acid and phosphoric acid ester components. Thus, the modification is not based on hindsight reconstruction, but on using know copper/phosphorous containing light absorber chemistry for the same purpose of near infrared light absorption. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use suck know phosphorous containing ester compounds with the copper containing light absorber to provide near-infrared attenuation in the desired optical filter module.
Regarding applicants argument that Mun, Devlin, Takagi, Kim, Kubo, Tsou and Shino fail to disclose the claimed OD value of the first light absorption layer for an incident light wavelength of 930-950nm being greater than 4. Applicants argument is not persuasive because Tsou is relied upon to teach the known desirability of high optical density in the near-infrared wavelength region. Tsou teaches an optical density range of OD3 to OD7 for infrared light in a wavelength range including 930-950 nm. This ranges includes OD values greater than 4. Therefore, Tsou teaches or at least suggests the claimed OD value.
Regarding applicants argument that Tsou cannot remedy the deficiency because Tsou allegedly related to a multilayer/interference filter rather than an absorption type filter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Tsou is not relied upon for the particular copper-complex absorption chemistry. Thou is relied up on for the known optical density value and the known benefit of strongly attenuating near infrared light in a filtering application. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that increasing the optical density of a near infrared blocking layer reduces unwanted near infrared radiation reaching the photosensitive element, thereby improving image quality. Applying the well know high OD near infrared filtering target of Tsou to the near infrared absorbing layer taught by Kubo would have been a predictable use of prior art teaching according to their know functions.
Regarding applicants argument that the claimed OD value corresponds to less than 0.01% transmittance and that the cited references do not teach the same “high standard” OD value. Applicants argument is not persuasive because Tsou expressly teaches OD values up to OD7, which encompasses values greater than OD4. Further, optical density is a result effective variable for an optical filter layer because increasing OD predictably increases attenuation of the target wavelength range. Optimizing the amount, concentration, thickness or composition of near infrared absorbing material to obtain desired optical density would have been within the ordinary skill in the art. Applicant has not show that OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm produces an unexpected result or critically relative to the high near infrared attenuation values taught by the applied art.
Regarding applicants argument that the present application is superior to the cited references. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because attorney argument alone is insufficient to establish unexpected results or criticality. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing that the claimed combination, including the claimed phosphorous containing compound and OD value, produces results that would have been unexpected relative to the combined teachings of the applied references.
Regarding applicants argument that the “technical essence” of the present invention lies in integrating various independent optical components including lenses and filters into an integrated, single piece component. Applicants argument is not persuasive. Mun already teaches an integrated lens module structure, and the applied combination merely modifies the integrated structure to include known bonding and filtering features. The proposed combination therefore does not discredit the integrated nature of the device, rather it provides know optical filtering features within the integrated lens module structure.
Regarding applicants argument that the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons argued with respect to the independent claim 1. Applicants argument is not persuasive because the arguments directed to independent claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Further, the dependent claim limitations are addressed by the applied references as set forth in the rejection. Accordingly the claims remain unpatentable in view of the cited references.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. "In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
(KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)), a motivation to modify can be based on the known and predictable benefits of making a change, such as improving the optical quality of an optical component. Furthermore the rationale to modify or combine references does not need to be explicitly stated in the prior art; it can be reasoned from common knowledge in the art or scientific principles, as supported by (In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Furthermore, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…."In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023)("[I]f there's a known technique to address a known problem using 'prior art elements according to their established functions,' then there is a motivation to combine." (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799-800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).
All rejections are maintained.
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.
All references used below are references “of record” for the present application.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141).
Regarding claim 1, Mun disclose a lens module with an integrated structure (Figure 7), comprising:
a first lens (Figure 7 depicts: 110, meta lens) and a second lens (Figure 7 depicts: 130, meta lens) disposed on outermost sides of the lens module, respectively (Figure 7 depicts: 110 and 130 meta lenses on outermost sides of the lens module, respectively);
a first substrate (Figure 7 depicts: 115, transparent substrate) and a second substrate (Figure 7 depicts: 125, transparent substrate) disposed on the first lens and the second lens, respectively (Figure 7 depicts: 115 and 125 substrates disposes on the first and second lens respectively).
Mun fails to disclose a device with an optical bonding layer formed on the first substrate or the second substrate and positioned between the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a first absorption layer and a second absorption layer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the first absorption layer comprises: a copper complex which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions, a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1, and at least one phosphorous-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4,
PNG
media_image1.png
216
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R, R1, R2 and R3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl, wherein the OD value of the first absorption layer for an incident light wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4, wherein the second absorption layer comprises an infrared absorption dye and an ultraviolet absorption dye. Mun and Devlin are related because both disclose imaging systems.
Devlin teaches a device with an optical bonding layer ([0093] teaches: adhesive; therefore considered an adhesive layer) formed on the first substrate or the second substrate and positioned between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0093] teaches: adhesive bonding metasurface layers and the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Devlin and provide an optical bonding layer formed on the first substrate or the second substrate and positioned between the first substrate and the second substrate. Doing so would allow for improved attenuation of unwanted wavelengths, thereby improving imaging performance.
The modified Mun fails to disclose a device with a first absorption layer and a second absorption layer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate. Mun and Takagi are related because both disclose optical devices.
Takagi teaches a device with a first absorption layer (Figure 1B depicts: 10, light absorbing layer) and a second absorption layer (Figure 1B depicts: a second 10, light absorbing layer). Mun and Kim are related because both disclose photoelectric devices.
Kim teaches a device wherein the absorption layers disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0055] teaches: light absorption layer disposed between the first and second substrates). Hu and Kubo are related because both disclose infrared absorption layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Takagi and Kim and provide a device with a first absorption layer and a second absorption layer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate. Doing so would allow for better selectivity of wavelength bands, thereby improving the overall filtering performance and quality of the lens module.
Kubo teaches wherein the first absorption layer ([0092] teaches: 10, light absorber) comprises: a copper complex ([0128] teaches: 10, light absorber layer, includes a copper complex) which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions ([0128] teaches: 10, light absorber layer, includes a copper complex, formed by a copper compound including copper ions), a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1 ([0118] teaches: compound including a phosphoric acid, see ligand structure (a) described in para [0022]), and at least one phosphor-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4 ([0118] teaches: compound including phosphoric acid ester, see [0134] for phosphoric acid ester compound options, see para [0022]-[0035] describing copper complex formation from ligand and esters, thereby teaching or suggesting at least one phosphorous-containing ester compound corresponding to at least one of Formulas 2 to 4),
PNG
media_image1.png
216
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R, R1, R2 and R3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl (see para [0134] for list of phosphoric acid ester compounds; these compounds include polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphoric acid esters; the listed esters include alkyl groups attached to the phosphate or phosphate structure and are examples of C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl; [0023] describes the alkyl and aryl group attachments). Hu and Tsou are related because both disclose infrared absorption layers.
Tsou teaches a device wherein the OD value of the near-infrared absorption layer (Col. 2 lines 31-32 teach: infrared-absorbing organic film) for the incident light wavelengths from 930-950 nm is greater than 4 (Figure 3 depicts: optical density exceeding 4 for wavelengths of approximately 900-1050 nm, which encompasses the claimed wavelength range of 930-950 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Kubo and Tsou and provide a structure wherein the infrared absorption layer comprises a copper complex which is formed by a copper compound for providing copper ions, a phosphonic acid represented by Formula 1, and at least one phosphor-containing compound represented by Formulas 2 to 4; wherein R, R1, R2 and R3 are each independently substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl, wherein the OD value of the near-infrared absorption layer for the incident light wavelengths from 930-950 nm is greater than 4. Doing so would allow for improved attenuation of near-infrared light in the desired wavelength range, thereby enhancing the performance and efficiency of the optical system by reducing undesired radiation reaching the photosensitive element.
The modified Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises an infrared absorption dye and an ultraviolet absorption dye. Mun and Shiono are related because both disclose optical systems.
Shiono teaches a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises an infrared absorption dye and an ultraviolet absorption dye ([0147] teaches: absorption layer may contain near-infrared absorbing dye and ultraviolet absorbing dye and infrared absorbing dye).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Shiono and provide a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises an infrared absorption dye and an ultraviolet absorption dye. Doing so would allow for better and broader wavelength selectivity of the absorption layer, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein the substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl is selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, iso-propyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, iso-butyl, tert-butyl; and the substituted or unsubstituted C6-C12 aryl is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, naphthyl and chlorophenyl (Kubo: [0023] and [0134] teaches: phosphoric acid ester compounds including: methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, iso-propyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, iso-butyl, tert-butyl as well as phenyl, naphthyl and chlorophenyl; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein the first absorption layer has a haze of 0.4% or less (Kubo: in at least abstract discloses: 10, light absorber layer, has a laze less than 0.20%, which falls within the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectrum of the first absorption layer has at least one principal peak at binding energy of 930-940 eV (Examiner notes that the binding energy of approx. 930-940 eV corresponds to the Cu 2p3/2 XPS peak characteristics of copper compounds and therefore necessarily occurs in binding of the specific copper complex orbitals of Kubo, See Antao et al. (US 2023/0084320) Figure 1a for example of binding energy of XPS copper peaks).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein the first absorption layer has minimum transmittance of 80% or more for an incident light wavelength of 460-560 nm (Kubo: Figure 5A depicts: transmittance of around 85-90% in the wavelength range of 460-560 nm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein the first absorption layer has minimum transmittance of 85% or more for an incident light wavelength of 460-560 nm (Kubo: Figure 5A depicts: transmittance of around 85-90% in the wavelength range of 460-560 nm; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1, wherein the optical bonding layer is an optical adhesive tape or an optical clear adhesive (Devlin: [0015] teaches: UV-cured epoxy adhesive, therefore considered an optical transmissive adhesive).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Rogers et al. (US 2023/0253361).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 4.
Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. Mun and Rogers are related because both disclose semiconductor devices.
Rogers teaches a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more (Figure 14 depicts: counts per second of wavelength in the specified range of at least 40,000 CPS, which includes the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Rogers and provide a device wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. Doing so would allow for a defined characterization of the absorption layer using know X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurement techniques, thereby improving the performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hiwatashi (2010/0210772).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1.
Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the first absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 µm. Mun and Hiwatashi are related because both disclose NIR absorbing structures.
Hiwatashi teaches a device wherein the near-infrared absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 μm ([0250] teaches: near-infrared absorbing layer of 25 mu.m in thickness).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Hiwatashi and provide a device wherein the near-infrared absorption layer has a thickness of 25-150 μm. Doing so would allow for better haze and infrared absorption, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Wan et al. (US 2024/0244307).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1.
Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are made of glass. Mun and Wan are related because both disclose optical lens modules.
Wan teaches a device wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are made of glass ([0027] teaches: first glass substrate and second glass substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Wan and provide a device wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are made of glass. Doing so would allow for better optical transparency and structural stability thereby improving the overall clarity and durability of the optical system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Guinn et al. (US 2023/0366522).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1.
Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the first lens and the second lens are made of materials selected from the group consisting of glass, polycarbonates and polyacrylates. Mun and Guinn are related because both disclose light control elements.
Guinn teaches a device wherein the first lens and the second lens are made of materials selected from the group consisting of glass, polycarbonates and polyacrylates ([0024] teaches: optical lens can be made of polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Guinn and provide a device wherein the first lens and the second lens are made of materials selected from the group consisting of glass, polycarbonates and polyacrylates. Doing so would allow for improved selective optical transparency, durability and ease of manufacturing, thereby improving the overall durability and performance of the optical system.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hattori et al. (US 2021/0071004).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1.
Mun fails to disclose a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises at least a sublayer comprising an infrared absorption dye and at least a sublayer comprising an ultraviolet absorption dye. Mun and Hattori are related because both disclose optical devices.
Hattori teaches a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises at least a sublayer comprising an infrared absorption dye and at least a sublayer comprising an ultraviolet absorption dye ([0009] teaches: 11a and 11b, near-infrared absorbing layer and ultraviolet absorbing layer; Examiner notes that he NIR absorbing dye is analogous to the IR absorbing dye of the modified Mun).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Hattori and provide a device wherein the second absorption layer comprises at least a sublayer comprising an infrared absorption dye and at least a sublayer comprising an ultraviolet absorption dye. Doing so would allow for attenuation in separate layers, thereby improving spectral filtering and reducing unwanted radiation reaching downstream optical components.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 12, wherein the near-infrared absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azo compounds, di-iminium compounds, benzene dithiol metal complexes, squaraine compounds, cyanine compounds and phthalocyanine compounds (Hattori: [0117] teaches: NIR dyes including cyanine based compounds; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 12, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 12, wherein the ultraviolet absorption dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of azomethylene compounds, indole compounds, ketone compounds, benzimidazole compounds and triazine compounds (Kubo teaches: triazine based compound for UV absorbing; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2022/0082731) in view of Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2020/0379150) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0047691) in view of Kubo (US 2025/0383481) in view of Tsou et al. (US 11,480,720) in view of Shino et al. (US 2022/0179141) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Parry-Jones et al. (US 2019/0015832).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Mun discloses the lens module of claim 1.
Mun fails to disclose a device further comprising a spacer disposed on the first substrate or the second substrate and surrounding the optical bonding layer. Mun and Parry-Jones are related because both disclose optical systems.
Parry-Jones teaches a device further comprising a spacer disposed on the first substrate or the second substrate and surrounding the optical bonding layer ([0067] teaches: adhesive between the spacer and the substrate; [0082] teaches spacer between the first and second substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mun to incorporate the teachings of Parry-Jones and provide teaches a device further comprising a spacer disposed on the first substrate or the second substrate and surrounding the optical bonding layer. Doing so would allow for prevention of the spreading of the optical boding layer, thereby improving the overall structural stability and reliability of the optical system.
Compact Prosecution
To advance prosecution, Applicant may consider further amending independent claim 1, if supported by the specification, to further define the specific integrated filter performance and angle-stability of the disclosed lens module. For example, Applicant may consider amending the claim, if supported by the specification, to recite that the first absorption layer provides the OD value greater than 4 at 930-950 nm while the lens module maintains reduced wavelength shift of the transmissive curve when irradiated at oblique incident angles, such as 30 degrees or 35 degrees, as shown in examples and Figures 9-11 of the present application. Such an amendment would more particularly define the disclosed technical feature of maintaining near infrared blocking performance in an integrated lens module while reducing image color change caused by incident angle shift.
Applicant may also consider amending the claim, if supported by the specification, to more specifically recite the structural arrangement of the first absorption layer, the second absorption layer and the optical bonding layer within the integrated lens module, such as the first and second absorption layers being sandwiched between the first and second substrates within the optical bonding layer disposed in the integrated stack. Such an amendment would more clearly distinguish the claimed integrated lens module structure from a mere combination of separate lenses, adhesive and filter teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights