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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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 first optical glass (11) is glued with a basic filter (20), the second optical glass (12) is coated with a diffusion glue layer (30), diffusion particles are evenly distributed in the diffusion glue layer (30), and the diffusion glue layer (30) is bonded to the basic filter (20).” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that “the first optical glass (11) is glued with a basic filter layer (20).” Specifically, it is unclear whether an additional glue layer should be provided between the optical glass and a basic filter, or if the basic filter is a glue, or if there is some additional structure required between the basic filter and the optical glass. Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes “a basic filter.” Specifically, it is unclear what structure is required for a filter to be a “basic” filter. It is unclear if the term “basic” is merely referring to the filter layer, or if there is some filtering property that should be construed as “basic.” For the purposes of examination, any optical glass provided with an optical layer on a surface thereof will be interpreted as reading on the claimed optical glass glued with a basic filter.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites “the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.05 mm.” However, it is unclear what is intended by the symbol “ϕ.” It is unclear if ϕ should be some value multiplied by the given dimensions, or if ϕ is simply intended to represent the diameter of the particles. For the purposes of examination, any diffusion particles with a diameter of 0.01 mm to 0.05 mm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-7 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 3 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites that “in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.02 mm, a 1/8-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly.” However, it is unclear what is intended by the symbol “ϕ.” It is unclear if ϕ should be some value multiplied by the given dimensions, or if ϕ is simply intended to represent the diameter of the particles.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to positively require that the diameter be between 0.01 mm and 0.02 mm. Rather, “in case” encompasses the conditional expression, and if the diffusion particles are not within the claimed diameter, then the diffusion effect is not defined. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim.
Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes a “1/8-level diffusion effect” and what structure is required to achieve such an effect. Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the filter assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the filter assembly to perform the function of achieving a 1/8-level diffusion effect. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). Specifically, it is unclear if the diffusion effect is merely an effect of the particle size, or if some additional structure is required in the filter assembly to achieve the claimed diffusion effect.
For the purposes of examination, any filter having diffusion particles with diameters in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, given the conditional nature of the language “in case.”
Similarly, claim 5 recites that “in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.02 mm to φ0.03 mm, a 1/4-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly.” However, it is unclear what is intended by the symbol “ϕ.” It is unclear if ϕ should be some value multiplied by the given dimensions, or if ϕ is simply intended to represent the diameter of the particles.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to positively require that the diameter be between 0.02 mm and 0.03 mm. Rather, “in case” encompasses the conditional expression, and if the diffusion particles are not within the claimed diameter, then the diffusion effect is not defined. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim.
Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes a “1/4-level diffusion effect” and what structure is required to achieve such an effect. Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the filter assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the filter assembly to perform the function of achieving a 1/4-level diffusion effect. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). Specifically, it is unclear if the diffusion effect is merely an effect of the particle size, or if some additional structure is required in the filter assembly to achieve the claimed diffusion effect.
For the purposes of examination, any filter having diffusion particles with diameters in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, given the conditional nature of the language “in case.”
Claim 6 recites that “in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.03 mm to φ0.04 mm, a 1/2-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly.” However, it is unclear what is intended by the symbol “ϕ.” It is unclear if ϕ should be some value multiplied by the given dimensions, or if ϕ is simply intended to represent the diameter of the particles.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to positively require that the diameter be between 0.03 mm and 0.04 mm. Rather, “in case” encompasses the conditional expression, and if the diffusion particles are not within the claimed diameter, then the diffusion effect is not defined. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim.
Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes a “1/2-level diffusion effect” and what structure is required to achieve such an effect. Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the filter assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the filter assembly to perform the function of achieving a 1/2-level diffusion effect. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). Specifically, it is unclear if the diffusion effect is merely an effect of the particle size, or if some additional structure is required in the filter assembly to achieve the claimed diffusion effect.
For the purposes of examination, any filter having diffusion particles with diameters in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, given the conditional nature of the language “in case.”
Similarly, claim 7 recites that “in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.04 mm to φ0.05 mm, a 1-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly.” However, it is unclear what is intended by the symbol “ϕ.” It is unclear if ϕ should be some value multiplied by the given dimensions, or if ϕ is simply intended to represent the diameter of the particles.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is intended to positively require that the diameter be between 0.04 mm and 0.05 mm. Rather, “in case” encompasses the conditional expression, and if the diffusion particles are not within the claimed diameter, then the diffusion effect is not defined. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim.
Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes a “1-level diffusion effect” and what structure is required to achieve such an effect. Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the filter assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the filter assembly to perform the function of achieving a 1-level diffusion effect. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). Specifically, it is unclear if the diffusion effect is merely an effect of the particle size, or if some additional structure is required in the filter assembly to achieve the claimed diffusion effect.
For the purposes of examination, any filter having diffusion particles with diameters in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, given the conditional nature of the language “in case.”
Claim 10 recites that “a waterproof membrane (50) is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (40).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the anti-reflection membrane (40)” as claim 10 depends upon claim 9 which recites “anti-reflection membranes (40) are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass (11) and an outer surface of the second optical glass (12).” It is unclear which anti-reflection membrane is intended to be “the anti-reflection membrane” as multiple such membranes are recited. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as requiring a waterproof membrane on any of the anti-reflection membranes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (Chinese Pub. No. 101784923 A; hereinafter – “Kawamura”). All citations to Kawamura are directed toward the English machine translation of the Chinese document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches a photographic filter assembly, comprising: a first optical glass (1) and a second optical glass (9, 30), wherein the first optical glass (1) is glued with a basic filter (4, 5), the second optical glass (9, 30) is coated with a diffusion glue layer (7), diffusion particles are evenly distributed in the diffusion glue layer (7), and the diffusion glue layer (7) is bonded to the basic filter (5) (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that the basic filter (4, 5) comprises a circular polarizer (CPL) filter, a variable neutral density (VND) filter or a neutral density (ND) filter (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0077-0082, 0130, and 0140).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.05 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.02 mm, a 1/8-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.02 mm to φ0.03 mm, a 1/4-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.03 mm to φ0.04 mm, a 1/2-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.04 mm to φ0.05 mm, a 1-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0061-0067, 0101-0106, and 0140).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that a material of the diffusion particles comprises carbon powder, quartz, PMMA or polypropylene (Paragraphs 0101-0105).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that wherein anti-reflection membranes are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass and an outer surface of the second optical glass (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 9, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that a waterproof membrane is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matano et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,388,798; hereinafter – “Matano”).
Regarding claim 1, Matano teaches a photographic filter assembly, comprising: a first optical glass (11, 21) and a second optical glass (11, 21), wherein the first optical glass (11, 21) is glued with a basic filter (13, 23, 24), the second optical glass (11, 21) is coated with a diffusion glue layer (12, 22, 25), diffusion particles are evenly distributed in the diffusion glue layer (12, 22, 25), and the diffusion glue layer (12, 22, 25) is bonded to the basic filter (13, 23, 24) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14).
Regarding claim 2, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Matano further teaches that the basic filter (4, 5) comprises a circular polarizer (CPL) filter, a variable neutral density (VND) filter or a neutral density (ND) filter (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14; C. 11, L. 19-56).
Regarding claim 3, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Matano further teaches that the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.05 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Matano further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.02 mm, a 1/8-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14; C. 10, L. 22-48).
Regarding claim 5, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Matano further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.02 mm to φ0.03 mm, a 1/4-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14; C. 10, L. 22-48).
Regarding claim 6, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Matano further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.03 mm to φ0.04 mm, a 1/2-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14; C. 10, L. 22-48).
Regarding claim 7, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Matano further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.04 mm to φ0.05 mm, a 1-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14; C. 10, L. 22-48).
Regarding claim 8, Matano teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Matano further teaches that a material of the diffusion particles comprises carbon powder, quartz, PMMA or polypropylene (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 4, L. 14-47; C. 7, L. 40 – C. 8, L. 14).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that wherein anti-reflection membranes are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass and an outer surface of the second optical glass (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 9, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that a waterproof membrane is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuyama et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0347976; hereinafter – “Masuyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Masuyama teaches a photographic filter assembly, comprising: a first optical glass (21, 151A) and a second optical glass (22, 151B), wherein the first optical glass (21, 151A) is glued with a basic filter (12, 13, 14, 34, 155, 156), the second optical glass (22, 151B) is coated with a diffusion glue layer (11, 154), diffusion particles are evenly distributed in the diffusion glue layer (11, 154), and the diffusion glue layer (11, 154) is bonded to the basic filter (12, 13, 14, 34, 155, 156) (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 28-29; Paragraphs 0075-0085, 0095, 0103-0119, 0127-0130, 0134-0143, 0164-0168, 0240, 0248-0249, 0254-0257, 0260, and 0347-0359).
Regarding claim 2, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that the basic filter (12, 13, 14, 34, 155, 156) comprises a circular polarizer (CPL) filter, a variable neutral density (VND) filter or a neutral density (ND) filter (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 28-29; Paragraphs 0068, 0092, 0134-0143, 0166-0172, 0238, 0251-0256, and 0362-0365).
Regarding claim 3, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.05 mm (Paragraphs 0107-0108).
Regarding claim 4, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.01 mm to φ0.02 mm, a 1/8-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (Paragraphs 0064-0068, 0107-0119, and 0237-0239).
Regarding claim 5, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.02 mm to φ0.03 mm, a 1/4-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (Paragraphs 0064-0068, 0107-0119, and 0237-0239).
Regarding claim 6, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.03 mm to φ0.04 mm, a 1/2-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (Paragraphs 0064-0068, 0107-0119, and 0237-0239).
Regarding claim 7, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 3, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that in case the diffusion particles have a diameter of φ0.04 mm to φ0.05 mm, a 1-level diffusion effect is achieved correspondingly (Paragraphs 0064-0068, 0107-0119, and 0237-0239).
Regarding claim 8, Masuyama teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Masuyama further teaches that a material of the diffusion particles comprises carbon powder, quartz, PMMA or polypropylene (Paragraphs 0105-0106, 0135-0140, and 0353).
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(s) 9-10 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyama or Matano in view of Lin (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2024/0036358).
Regarding claim 9, Masuyama and Matano each teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Masuyama and Matano each fails to explicitly disclose anti-reflection membranes are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass and an outer surface of the second optical glass.
However, Lin teaches a special lens comprising a first optical glass (10) and a second optical glass (30), wherein the first optical glass (10) is glued with a basic filter (20), the second optical glass (30) is coated with a glue layer (40), the glue layer (40) is bonded to the basic filter (20), and anti-reflection membranes (3) are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass (10) and an outer surface of the second optical glass (20) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0028, and 0039).
Lin teaches these anti-reflection membranes “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens” (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photographic filter assembly of Masuyama or Matano with the anti-reflection membranes of Lin “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens,” as taught by Lin (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 10, Masuyama in view of Lin and Matano in view of Lin each teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 9, as above.
Lin further teaches that a waterproof membrane (4) is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (3) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0028, and 0039).
Lin teaches this waterproof membrane “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens” (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photographic filter assembly of Masuyama or Matano with the waterproof membrane of Lin “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens,” as taught by Lin (Paragraph 0028).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 1, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that wherein anti-reflection membranes are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass and an outer surface of the second optical glass (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
While Kawamura explicitly teaches the incorporation of anti-reflection membranes, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Lin.
Lin teaches a special lens comprising a first optical glass (10) and a second optical glass (30), wherein the first optical glass (10) is glued with a basic filter (20), the second optical glass (30) is coated with a glue layer (40), the glue layer (40) is bonded to the basic filter (20), and anti-reflection membranes (3) are respectively disposed on an outer surface of the first optical glass (10) and an outer surface of the second optical glass (20) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0028, and 0039).
Lin teaches these anti-reflection membranes “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens” (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, even if Kawamura did not disclose the claimed anti-reflection membranes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photographic filter assembly of Kawamura with the anti-reflection membranes of Lin “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens,” as taught by Lin (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura in view of Lin teaches the photographic filter assembly according to claim 9, as above.
Kawamura further teaches that a waterproof membrane is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (See e.g. Figs. 1-7; Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0075, and 0132).
Additionally, Lin further teaches that a waterproof membrane (4) is disposed on the anti-reflection membrane (3) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0028, and 0039).
Lin teaches this waterproof membrane “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens” (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, even if Kawamura did not teach the claimed waterproof membrane, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photographic filter assembly of Kawamura with the waterproof membrane of Lin “to enhance the hardness, the waterproof and oil-proof performance of the lens surface and the light transmittance of the lens,” as taught by Lin (Paragraph 0028).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yin et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2025/0012959) teaches a light diffusion film, polarizer, and display device with similar diffusion particles in a diffusion glue layer.
Yoshida et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0197083) teaches a liquid crystal display apparatus with a similar filter having a diffusion glue layer.
Du et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0339432) teaches color compensating optical filters comprising similar diffusion glue layers, anti-reflection layers, and waterproof layers.
Hester, III et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,327,180) teaches a polarized lens and method of making the same comprising a similar layered filter with anti-reflection layers and waterproof layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights