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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) that Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose the specific copper complex. (2) Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose Formulas 2 and 3. (3) Applicant argues that Kubo merely discloses a generic phosphoric acid ester and does not disclose formula 4. (4) Applicant argues that Kubo fails to disclose the claimed C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl substituents. (5) Applicant argues that Feinbloom does not cure the alleged phosphorus containing compound deficiency. (6) Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have reasonably expected the claimed phosphorous containing compounds to provide the asserted NIR cutoff. (7) Applicant argues that Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. (8) Applicant argues that Kubo’s discloses transmittance does not correspond to the claimed OD greater than 4. (9) Applicant argues that Feinbloom does not disclose a specific filtering material capable of achieving OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. (10) Applicant argues that the claimed filter lens has superior NIR absorption performance. (11) Applicant argues that the additional cited references do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Kubo and Feinbloom. (12) Applicant argues that independent claim 11, and the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose the specific copper complex. This argument is not persuasive. Kubo supplies the copper/phosphorous containing absorber chemistry while Feinbloom is relied upon for the high OD teaching.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo fails to disclose Formulas 2 and 3. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 requires only at least one compound represented by formulas 2-4. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo merely discloses a generic phosphoric acid ester and does not disclose formula 4. This argument is not persuasive. 103 rejections do not require express disclosure of the exact species where Kubo’s teaching at least suggest the claimed selection. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo fails to disclose the claimed C1-C12 alkyl or C6-C12 aryl substituents. This argument is not persuasive. Kubo teaches alkyl and aryl substituent classes and related phosphorus containing absorber chemistry, making the claimed selection obvious absent criticality or unexpected results. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicants argument that Feinbloom does not cure the alleged phosphorus containing compound deficiency. This argument is not persuasive. Feinbloom is not relied upon for the claimed copper/phosphorus chemistry; Kubo is relied upon for that teaching.
Regarding applicants argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have reasonably expected the claimed phosphorous containing compounds to provide the asserted NIR cutoff. This argument is not persuasive. Kubo already teaches copper/phosphorus containing compositions for light absorption, providing a reasonable expectation of similar NIR filtering performance.
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo and Feinbloom fail to disclose OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. This argument is not persuasive. Feinbloom teaches absorptive filters having an optical density of 5 or greater and teaches adjusting OD through filtering material amount, concentration and thickness. "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.").
Regarding applicants argument that Kubo’s discloses transmittance does not correspond to the claimed OD greater than 4. This argument is not persuasive. Kubo is not relied upon alone for the claimed high OD limitation; Feinbloom supplies that teaching.
Regarding applicants argument that Feinbloom does not disclose a specific filtering material capable of achieving OD greater than 4 at 930-950 nm. This argument is not persuasive. Feinbloom supplies the known high OD target and means of adjusting OD, while Kubo supplies the NIR absorbing chemistry. "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.").
Regarding applicants argument that the claimed filter lens has superior NIR absorption performance. This argument is not persuasive. Attorney argument alone does not establish unexpected results or criticality.
Regarding applicants argument that the additional cited references do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Kubo and Feinbloom. This argument is not persuasive. The asserted deficiencies have not been established and the rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references.
Regarding applicants argument that independent claim 11, and the dependent claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. The arguments regarding the common limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above and no separate deficiency has been identified.
All rejections are maintained.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner recommends, if supported by the specification, an amendment to the independent claims to require all three of Formulas 2-4 simultaneously, to potentially overcome the rejection of record.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, 10-11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/0383481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses a filter lens ([0108] discloses: an optical filter, including a lens, and 10, light absorber), comprising: a copper complex ([0128] teaches: 10, light absorber layer, includes a copper complex) formed by a copper compound 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], [0133]-[0134] teaches: use of phosphoric acid ester with the copper/phosphonic acid light absorber, thereby at least suggesting a phosphorus containing ester corresponding to one of the claimed Formula 2-4 alternatives; claim 1 requires only at least one of Formulas 2-4),
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 C6-C12 aryl ([0027]-[0032] teach: alkyl and aryl substituent classes in the phosphorus containing absorber chemistry; [0134] teaches: numerous alkyl containing phosphoric acid esters and expressly states that the phosphoric acid ester is not limited to a particular ester; selection of the claimed alkyl or aryl substituent would have been and obvious selection absent criticality or unexpected results).
Kubo fails to disclose a filter wherein the OD value of the filter lens for the incident light wavelength of 930 nm to 950 nm is greater than 4. Kubo and Feinbloom are related because both disclose infrared absorption layers.
Feinbloom teaches a filter wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light
wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4 (Col. 7, lines 31-35 teach: filters of optical density 5 or greater are known in the art; Col. 1 line 61-Col 2 line 9 teaches: filtering out wavelengths to provide maximum visible light transmission, absorptive filters may be used; Examiner notes that this includes filters of optical density 5 in the UV and NIR regions, mentioned in Col. 1; thereby reasonably encompassing 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 Kubo to incorporate the
teachings of Feinbloom and provide a filter wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light wavelength of 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.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens 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 ([0027]-[0032] teaches: alkyl and aryl substituent classes in the phosphorus containing absorber chemistry; [0134] teaches: alkyl containing phosphoric acid esters and states that the ester is not limited to a particular compound; selection of the recited known alkyl or aryl species from these disclosed classes would have been an obvious selection absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 1, wherein an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectrum thereof 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 10, The filter lens of claim 1, which is a concave lens, a convex lens, a convex-concave lens, or a flat lens ([0219] discloses: 8a, lens; Figure 3B depicts: 8a, lens as a convex lens).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo discloses a method for preparing a filter lens ([0108] discloses: an optical filter, including a lens, and 10, light absorber, see Figure 3B for filter lens), comprising: providing a copper compound ([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, to form a composition containing a copper complex ([[0118], [0133]-[0134] teaches: use of phosphoric acid ester with the copper/phosphonic acid light absorber, thereby at least suggesting a phosphorus containing ester corresponding to one of the claimed Formula 2-4 alternatives; claim 1 requires only at least one of Formulas 2-4),
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 C6-C12 aryl ([0027]-[0032] teach: alkyl and aryl substituent classes in the phosphorus containing absorber chemistry; [0134] teaches: numerous alkyl containing phosphoric acid esters and expressly states that the phosphoric acid ester is not limited to a particular ester; selection of the claimed alkyl or aryl substituent would have been and obvious selection absent criticality or unexpected results); and curing the composition to obtain the filter lens ([0115] discloses: curing a liquid light-absorbing composition).
Kubo fails to disclose a filter wherein the OD value of the filter lens for the incident light wavelength of 930 nm to 950 nm is greater than 4. Kubo and Feinbloom are related because both disclose infrared absorption layers.
Feinbloom teaches a filter wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light
wavelength of 930-950 nm is greater than 4 (Col. 7, lines 31-35 teach: filters of optical density 5 or greater are known in the art; Col. 1 line 61-Col 2 line 9 teaches: filtering out wavelengths to provide maximum visible light transmission, absorptive filters may be used; Examiner notes that this includes filters of optical density 5 in the UV and NIR regions, mentioned in Col. 1; thereby reasonably encompassing 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 Kubo to incorporate the
teachings of Feinbloom and provide a filter wherein the OD value of the filter for the incident light wavelength of 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.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11, 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 ([0027]-[0032] teaches: alkyl and aryl substituent classes in the phosphorus containing absorber chemistry; [0134] teaches: alkyl containing phosphoric acid esters and states that the ester is not limited to a particular compound; selection of the recited known alkyl or aryl species from these disclosed classes would have been an obvious selection absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectrum thereof 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).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, in view of Lertwattanaseri et al. (US 2020/0088909, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 1.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less. Kubo and Lertwattanaseri are related because both disclose filter lenses.
Lertwattanaseri teaches a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less (Table 2 discloses: filter lens, with haze of 0.19%, which falls within 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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Lertwattanaseri and provide a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less. Doing so would allow for reduced light scattering within the filter lens, thereby improving optical clarity and transmission performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less. Kubo and Lertwattanaseri are related because both disclose filter lenses.
Lertwattanaseri teaches a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less (Table 2 discloses: filter lens, with haze of 0.19%, which falls within 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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Lertwattanaseri and provide a filter lens having a haze of 0.4% or less. Doing so would allow for reduced light scattering within the filter lens, thereby improving optical clarity and transmission performance of the optical system.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 4 and 18 above, in view of Rogers et al. (US 2023/0253361, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 4.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. Kubo and Rogers are related because both disclose x-ray photoelectron 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 Kubo 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.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 18.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter wherein the at least one principal peak has counts per second of 4500 or more. Kubo and Rogers are related because both disclose x-ray photoelectron 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 Kubo 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.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, in view of Etter et al. (US 2020/0081234, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 1.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm. Kubo and Etter are related because both disclose optical systems.
Etter teaches a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm ([0083] teaches: lens thickness of 66.1-65-8 micrometers, which falls within 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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Etter and provide a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm. Doing so would allow for controlling the optical performance and mechanical properties of the filter lens, such as maintaining sufficient rigidity while minimizing thickness, thereby improving manufacturability, compactness and overall performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm. Kubo and Etter are related because both disclose optical systems.
Etter teaches a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm ([0083] teaches: lens thickness of 66.1-65-8 micrometers, which falls within 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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Etter and provide a filter lens having a thickness of 25-150 µm. Doing so would allow for controlling the optical performance and mechanical properties of the filter lens, such as maintaining sufficient rigidity while minimizing thickness, thereby improving manufacturability, compactness and overall performance of the optical system.
Claims 7-8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Forseth et al. (US 2018/0010237, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 1.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens further comprising an optical resin, wherein the optical resin is a thermoplastic resin and/or a photocurable resin, and the optical resin is selected from polycarbonates, polyesters, polycycloolefins, polyacrylics, siloxane resins and polyimides. Kubo and Forseth are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Forseth 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 ([0106] teaches: filter lens, can be made of methyl methacrylate).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Forseth 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.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 7, wherein the optical resin is methyl methacrylate (Forseth: [0106] teaches: filter lens, can be made of methyl methacrylate; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 7, 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 21, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens further comprising an optical resin, wherein the optical resin is a thermoplastic resin and/or a photocurable resin, and the optical resin is selected from polycarbonates, polyesters, polycycloolefins, polyacrylics, siloxane resins and polyimides. Kubo and Forseth are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Forseth 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 ([0106] teaches: filter lens, can be made of methyl methacrylate).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Forseth 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.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the optical resin is methyl methacrylate (Forseth: [0106] teaches: filter lens, can be made of methyl methacrylate; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 7, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shiono et al. (US 2022/0179141, of record).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kubo discloses the filter lens of claim 1.
Kubo fails to disclose a filter lens further comprising an infrared absorption dye and/or an ultraviolet absorption dye. Kubo and Shiono are related because both disclose optical filter lenses.
Shiono teaches a filter lens ([0222] teaches: imaging lens, and optical filter of present invention) further comprising an infrared absorption dye and/or an ultraviolet absorption dye ([0151] teaches, optical filter, absorption layer has 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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Shiono and provide a filter lens further comprising an infrared absorption dye and/or an ultraviolet absorption dye. Doing so would allow for flare and ghost to be suppressed (Shiono: 0151), thereby improving the overall performance and quality of the optical system.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Patterson et al. (US 2019/0129178, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11.
Kubo fails to disclose a method wherein the curing step comprises loading the composition into a die for curing-forming to obtain the filter lens. Kubo and Patterson are related because both disclose methods of forming lenses.
Patterson teaches a method wherein the curing step comprises loading the composition into a die ([0168] teaches: slot die, to deposit a layer) for curing-forming to obtain the filter lens ([0168] teaches: lens is cured).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Patterson and provide a method wherein the curing step comprises loading the composition into a die for curing-forming to obtain the filter lens. Doing so would allow for precise control of lens geometry and thickness during curing, while enabling scalable and repeatable fabrication processes, thereby improving manufacturability and consistency of the optical device.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 11.
Kubo fails to disclose a method wherein the curing step comprises coating the composition on a substrate and patterning the mixture using a lithography process to obtain the filter lens. Kubo and Patterson are related because both disclose methods of forming lenses.
Patterson teaches a method wherein the curing step comprises coating the composition on a substrate ([0056] teaches: spin coat manufacturing of a lens substrate) and patterning the mixture using a lithography process to obtain the filter lens ([0173] teaches: creating a pattern using various lithography techniques).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Patterson and provide a method wherein the curing step comprises coating the composition on a substrate and patterning the mixture using a lithography process to obtain the filter lens. Doing so would allow for precise patterning and fine feature control of the filter lens using lithographic techniques, thereby improving optical functionality and enabling integration with compact and micro-scale optical devices.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record) in view of Patterson et al. (US 2019/0129178, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Sharma et al. (US 11,455,031, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 12.
Kubo fails to disclose a method wherein the curing-forming is carried out via injection molding, thermoforming, vacuum forming, or photocuring. Kubo and Sharma are related because both disclose lens manufacturing methods.
Sharma teaches a method wherein the curing-forming is carried out via injection molding, thermoforming, vacuum forming, or photocuring (Col. 21, lines 50-60 teach: injection molding).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Sharma and provide a method wherein the curing-forming is carried out via injection molding, thermoforming, vacuum forming, or photocuring. Doing so would allow for achieving desired lens geometry and material properties, while improving production efficiency and repeatability, thereby enhancing manufacturability and overall optical system performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2025/033481, of record) in view of Feinbloom et al. (US 10,215,977, of record) in view of Patterson et al. (US 2019/0129178, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Imagawa et al. (US 2023/0374191, of record).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kubo discloses the method of claim 12.
Kubo fails to disclose a method wherein the curing-forming is performed for 1 hr or less. Kubo and Imagawa are related because both disclose optical lens composition methods.
Imagawa teaches a method wherein the curing-forming is performed for 1 hr or less ([0211] teaches: polymerization curing for 1 hour).
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 Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Imagawa and provide a method wherein the curing-forming is performed for 1 hr or less. Doing so would allow for optimization of time to achieve sufficient polymerization, thereby improving manufacturing efficiency, throughput, and overall production performance.
ConclusionTHIS 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