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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 10, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 6 and has newly added claims 7-11.
Claims 1-11 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Ngo et al (US 2015/0299470 A1) in view of US patent issued to Terada et al (US 5,725,959).
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 7-10 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Ngo et al teaches, with regard to amended claim 1, an optical member that is comprised of a base substrate (102, Figure 1) that may serve as the light transmissive member or hard coat layer and an anti-reflective stack (104) covering the base substrate. Ngo et al teaches that the anti-reflective stack is configured to have high refractive index films and low refractive index films ae alternately stacked, (please see paragraphs [0012] to [0014]). Ngo et al teaches that the high refractive index films contain Si3N4, (please see Table 1) and the low refractive index films contain SiO2. Ngo et al teaches that the total number films of the high refractive index films and the low refractive index films is an even number (total number is 6 as shown in Table 1). A ratio of thickness of a thick film to thickness of a thin film of two adjacent films for each of the high refractive index films and the low refractive index films, as shown in Table 1, ranges from 1.17 to 4.96 which is less than 6.
Ngo et al teaches that the average reflectance of the anti-reflective stack is less or equal to 0.8% for visible wavelength spectrum greater than 425 nm. The average reflectance greatly increases for wavelength less than 425 nm. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the reflectance for the anti-reflective stack in the wavelength range of 300 to 400 nm is 40% or more, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it is basic knowledge in the art that by designing and selecting the thickness and refractive indices of the high and low refractive index films, the reflectance of the anti-reflective stack may be designed. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to design the anti-reflective stack to have a low reflectance in the visible wavelength range and greater than 40% of reflectance for wavelength of light in the range of 300 to 400 nm (i.e. not in the visible wavelength range) for the benefit of allowing the anti-reflective stack to have desired reflectance characteristics for desired applications.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “an average reflectance of the antireflection layer in a wavelength range of 450 to 800 nm is 2.0% or less”.
Ngo et al teaches that the reflectance of the anti-reflective stack from 450 nm to 725 nm has an average that is less than 2.0%, (please see Figure 4). It however does not teach explicitly about the reflectance in the range from 725 nm to 800 nm.
Terada et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an antireflection film that has an average reflectance in the range of 450 nm to 800 nm is less than 2.0%, (please see Figures 9, 11, 13 and 17). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Terada et al to modify the anti-reflective stack of Ngo et al to have a reflectance less than 2.0% in the range of 450 nm to 800 nm for the benefit of allowing the anti-reflective stack to have the desired reflectance characteristics.
This reference also does not teach the optical member comprises a light-transmissive member and a hard coat layer covering the light-transmissive member and an antireflective layer covering the hard coat layer. Terada et al in the same field of endeavor teaches the antireflection film has a plastic lens or a substrate, (1, Figure 1 or 11, Figure 10) serves as the light transmissive layer and an undercoat layer (2 or 12) serves as a hard coat layer covering the light transmissive layer and an antireflective layer (3 or 13) covering the hard coat layer or undercoat layer, (please see column 12, lines 8-15). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Terada et al to make the anti-reflective stack of Ngo et al be utilized in a lens structure for covering a hard coat layer and a light transmissive layer of the lens structure.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Ngo et al teaches that the total number of films of the high refractive index films and the low refractive index films is 6 which is less than 10, (please see Table 1).
With regard to claim 4, Ngo et al teaches that the film located farthest from the hard coat layer in the anti-reflective stack is one of the low refractive index films (106f), i.e. SiO2 film next to the protective layer (105).
With regard to newly added claim 7, Terda et al teaches that the film closest to the hard coat or undercoat in the antireflection layer is one of the high refractive index film, (please see column 12, lines 20-22).
With regard to newly added claim 8, both Ngo et al and Terada et al teaches that the low refractive index film contains SiO2, (please see Table 1 of Ngo et al and column 2, lines 30-36 of Terada et al). In light of claim 1, (based claim), the refractive index of the low refractive index film must have a value between 1.5 and 1.8. Terda et al teaches that the low refractive index film contains SiOx (2
≥
x
≥
1
), (please see column 2 lines 30-36) and Terada et al further teaches that the low refractive index film may have a refractive indices between 1.43 to 1.55, please see column 5).
With regard to newly added claim 9, Ngo et al teaches that the high refractive index film contains Si3N4, whose refractive is 1.93, (please see Table 1), that is in the range of 1.9 and 2.3. Ngo et al further teaches that the high refractive index films may also comprise Nb2O5 and TiO2, (please see paragraph [0028]) which has refractive indices in the range of 1.9 and 2.3.
With regard to newly added claim 10, Ngo et al teaches that each of the low refractive index films and each of the high refractive index films has a thickness that is in the range of 5 nm and 200 nm, (please see Table 1).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al and Terada et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese patent issued to Inaba et al (Mexell Holdings LTD, JP 2021036284 A).
The optical member taught by Ngo et al in combination with the teachings of Terada et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, these references do not teach explicitly to include a plurality of lens wherein the optical member serves as one of the lenses and do not teach explicitly that wherein the at least one lens is arranged to be exposed from a lens barrel wherein remaining lens of the plurality of lenses is arranged in the lens barrel. Inaba et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a lens unit for a camera module that is comprised of a lens barrel (Figure 1) with a plurality of lenses (13, 14, 15 and 16) is attached to wherein at least one lens (13, Figure 1) is arranged to be exposed from the lens barrel and remaining lens of the plurality of lenses is arranged in the lens barrel, (14-16, Figure 1). Inaba et al teaches that the at least one lens (13) has an antireflective layer (30) deposited on the lens (13), with the antireflective layer comprises alternative arranged high refractive index film Si3N4 and low refractive index film SiO2, (please see Figure 2). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Inaba et al to make the optical member with the anti-reflective stack to constitute as the exposed lens of the lens unit for the camera module for the benefit of expanding the utility of the optical member.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al and Terada et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Tsai et al (US 2023/0305200 A1).
Claim 11 has been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The optical member taught by Ngo et al in combination with the teachings of Terada et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to newly added claim 11, Ngo et al teaches that the light transmissive member or substrate may comprise polymeric material. Terada et al teaches that the light transmissive member or the substrate may comprise polymeric materials such as PMMA or PC. These references however do not teach that it may also comprise a resin having a cyclic imide structure.
Tsai et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a low reflection layer that may be coated on a light transmissive member including a polyimide compound including cyclic imides, (please see paragraph [0063]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use art well known material as the light transmissive member for the antireflective film, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended and newly added claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to newly amended and newly added claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights