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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosho et al. (JP 08036101 A).
As to claims 1 and 14-15, Gosho (in particular, see claims, paragraphs [0001] and [0013]-[0015], table 2, and examples) discloses "an antireflection film for an optical component made of a synthetic resin, the antireflection film being formed from a three-layer structure in which a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer are laminated in the stated order from the surface side on the surface of an optical component made of a synthetic resin, the antireflection film being characterized in that the first layer comprises a chromium layer having a film thickness of 15 nm or less, the second layer comprises a cerium dioxide layer, and the third layer comprises a silicon dioxide layer" (claim 1), and also indicates that the antireflection film is used in an optical component such as a lens. In addition, as a specific example, the examples describe an antireflection film being formed by laminating a chromium layer, a cerium dioxide (CeO₂) layer having a thickness of 82 nm, and a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) layer having a thickness of 135 nm in the stated order on one surface of an acrylic resin substrate, and also indicate that the refractive index of the silicon dioxide layer is 1.46. Gosho further discloses in paragraph [0005] vacuum vapor deposition is used to form the layers of the antireflection film.
Gosho does not explicitly disclose the crystal structure of the cerium dioxide layer, but this layer is formed by a vacuum vapor deposition method that is considered to be preferable in the present application (paragraph [0014]), and since the temperature conditions during film formation are similar to those in the present application (see examples 43-46 of the present application), it is highly probable that the crystal structure is a cubic polycrystalline structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the that the crystal structure of the cerium dioxide layer is a cubic polycrystalline structure because of the aforementioned similarities in the manufacturing conditions.
As to claim 2, Gosho discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Gosho further discloses wherein the cerium oxide has a composition CeOx, where x=2.0 (cerium dioxide).
As to claim 3, Gosho discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Because the cerium dioxide layer contains purely cerium dioxide, the mass% of cerium dioxide contained in the layer is close to 100%.
As to claim 4, Gosho discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Because the silicon dioxide layer contains purely silicon dioxide, the mass% of silicon dioxide contained in the layer is close to 100%.
As to claim 7, Gosho discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Claim 7 specifies that a layer containing silicon dioxide is provided on a layer containing silicon oxide, but when these layers are formed from the same material (for example, SiO₂/SiO₂), the layers cannot be distinguished from each other. Therefore, the claimed invention cannot be clearly distinguished from the antireflection film disclosed by Gosho.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosho et al. (JP 08036101 A) in view of Kasuya et al. (US 2021/0124091).
Gosho discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the layer containing silicon oxide contains aluminum oxide, and wherein a content ratio of the aluminum oxide in the layer containing silicon oxide is 0.1 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less with respect to the entirety of the layer containing silicon oxide. Kasuya discloses in figure 1 and paragraph [0029], a topmost layer 10 formed of a mixture of SiO2 and Al2O3, wherein a composition ratio of SiO2 is 90% by weight or more. Kasuya further discloses in paragraph [0029], that this allows the hydrophilic effect to be exhibited even at night or outdoors, and the scratch resistance can be further enhanced by using the mixture of SiO2 and Al2O3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gosho by providing a topmost silicon dioxide layer containing aluminum oxide, wherein a composition ratio of silicon dioxide is 90% by weight or more, as disclosed by Kasuya, in order to obtain a hydrophilic effect and scratch resistance. Kasuya does not disclose that the silicon dioxide layer contains cerium oxide as recited in claim 6. However, cerium oxide was an art recognized equivalent to the aluminum oxide disclosed by Kasuya, for the purpose of providing a hydrophilic effect and scratch resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gosho by providing a topmost silicon dioxide layer containing cerium oxide because cerium oxide was an art recognized equivalent to the aluminum oxide disclosed by Kasuya, for the purpose of providing a hydrophilic effect and scratch resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a multilayer film comprising the combination required by claim 8, including a layer formed of a first metal oxide between the layer containing cerium oxide and the layer containing silicon oxide or the layer containing magnesium fluoride, wherein the layer formed of a first metal oxide contains a metal oxide having a polycrystalline structure, and wherein the layer formed of a first metal oxide has a thickness of 0.5 nm or more and 15 nm or less. Claims 9-10 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a multilayer film comprising the combination required by claim 11, including a layer formed of a second metal oxide between the layer containing silicon oxide or the layer containing magnesium fluoride and the layer containing silicon dioxide, wherein the layer formed of a second metal oxide contains a metal oxide having a polycrystalline structure, and wherein the layer formed of a second metal oxide has a thickness of 0.5 nm or more and 7 nm or less. Claims 12-13 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights