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 § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0320968 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Murata discloses: A lens substrate comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a first zone on a surface of the lens substrate (lens 10 has an upper surface which has a central optical portion 11, and may be manufactured using mold 30; paragraphs [0032], [0043], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata);
the first zone being configured to manipulate a first wavelength range (central optical portion 11 may have a plurality of projections 16 [corresponding to recesses 35 of the mold 30] which reduce reflection of light having a wavelength equal to or greater than the pitch [center-to-center spacing] of the projections 16; Abstract and paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata);
wherein:
the first zone comprises at least one Frustrum cut pyramid structure (projections 16 [of sub-wavelength structure SWS 13] may comprise truncated pyramids; paragraphs [0004], [0035], [0125] and FIGS. 1, 4, 14H of Murata); and
a minimum distance between Frustrum cut pyramid structures in the first zone is a minimum wavelength of the first wavelength range (the wavelengths of light which have reduced reflection due to the projections 16 are wavelengths equal to or greater than the pitch [center-to-center spacing] of the projections 16, i.e., a lower end of the wavelength range corresponds to the pitch; Abstract and paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0038], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata); and
a second zone on the surface of the lens substrate (the upper surface of lens 10 has an edge portion 12; Abstract and paragraphs [0032]-[0035], [0056]-[0058] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata);
the second zone being configured to manipulate a second wavelength range distinct from the first wavelength range (at edge portion 12, recesses 35 [corresponding to projections 16] of mold 10 are arranged at a greater pitch than at central optical portion 11, and as Murata explains, wavelengths of light which have reduced reflection due to the projections 16 are the wavelengths equal to or greater than the pitch [spacing] of the projections 16, and thus for edge portion 12, the range of wavelengths which are manipulated [having their reflection reduced] starts at a greater minimum wavelength due to the greater pitch of the projections 16 in this region; Abstract and paragraphs [0032]-[0035], [0038], [0056]-[0058], [0060], [0065] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata).
Regarding Claim 2, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first zone is a first annular region on the surface of the lens substrate and the first zone has a first radius and a first thickness (the first zone of Murata [central projections 16] may be more specifically identified as peripheral region 38d having an annular shape which is concentric with edge region 38a [corresponding to edge portion 12 having first recesses 35a], wherein peripheral region 38d has a radius relative to optical axis X and a thickness corresponding to the difference between its inner radial distance and its outer radial distance; paragraphs [0056], [0057], [0078] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5 of Murata, but see especially FIG. 5 showing a top-down view relative to the side view of FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the at least one Frustrum cut pyramid structure is positioned within the first zone in a repeating pattern (projections 16 may be present in a repeating pattern; paragraphs [0004], [0035], [0125] and FIGS. 1, 4, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 4, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses: wherein the repeating pattern includes a repeating unit of two or more pyramid structures (projections 16 may be present in a repeating pattern such as staggered rows of more than two pyramid structures; paragraphs [0004], [0035], [0125] and FIGS. 1, 4, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 5, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses: wherein the repeating pattern comprises five Frustrum cut pyramid structures arranged within a square, wherein one Frustrum cut pyramid structure is positioned at each of four corners of the square, and one Frustrum pyramid structure is arranged at the center of the square (FIG. 14H of Murata shows a repeating pattern of five pyramid structures in which a central pyramid structure is surrounded by four pyramid structures as the corners of a square; see annotated FIG. 14H below provided to help illustrate this pattern).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the at least one Frustrum cut pyramid structure each having a first set of dimensions that are defined based on the first wavelength range (the pitch of the plurality of projections 16 are chosen based on the reduction of reflection of light for wavelengths equal to or greater than the pitch [center-to-center spacing] of the projections 16, but also note that Murata further contemplates selecting the heights of the projections 16 as corresponding to a target wavelength, e.g., visible wavelengths of light, such as preferably 0.4 or more times the target wavelength, and further note that pitch will have value in both X and Y directions, i.e., across both a length and a width of the arrayed pattern of projections 16; Abstract and paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0039], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 7, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 6 and further discloses: wherein each pyramid structure in the at least one Frustrum cut pyramid structure comprises: a first lower base proximate to the substrate; and a first upper base above the substrate, and wherein the first set of dimensions include a first lower base width, a first lower base length, a first upper base width, a first upper base length, and a first height (each pyramid structure [projection 16] has a set of dimensions corresponding to a lower base length and width [closer to the upper surface of lens 10] and an upper base length and width [further from upper surface of lens 10] which are less [shorter] than the lower base length and width; FIGS. 1, 4, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 8, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 6 and further discloses: wherein the second zone comprises a second group of Frustrum cut pyramid structures each having a second set of dimensions that are defined by the second wavelength range, the second set of dimensions having distinct values than the first set of dimensions (the pitch of projections 16 in the edge portion 12 [more specifically the mold region 38e] has a value in both X and Y directions, i.e., across both a length and a width of the arrayed pattern of projections 16, which is greater than in the central optical portion 11 due to the intentionally larger recesses 35a [to account for greater shrinkage in the vicinity of gate 26]; Abstract and paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0039], [0048]-[0050], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 9, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses: wherein the second group of Frustrum cut pyramid structures are positioned within the second zone in a repeating pattern (projections 16, including within the edge portion 12 [corresponding to recesses 35a], may be present in a repeating pattern; paragraphs [0004], [0035], [0125] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 10, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein a minimum distance between Frustrum cut pyramid structures in the second zone is a minimum wavelength of the second wavelength range (the wavelengths of light which have reduced reflection due to the projections 16 are wavelengths equal to or greater than the pitch [center-to-center spacing] of the projections 16, i.e., a lower end of the wavelength range corresponds to the pitch, and recesses 35a near the gate 26 are arranged at greater pitches than the recesses 35 in the central portion; Abstract and paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0038], [0056], [0060] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata).
Regarding Claim 11, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein each Frustrum cut pyramid structure in the second group of Frustrum cut pyramid structures comprises a lower base proximate to the substrate and an upper base above the substrate, and the second set of dimensions comprise a second lower base width, a second lower base length, a second upper base width, a second upper base length, and a second height (each pyramid structure [projection 16] has a set of dimensions corresponding to a lower base length and width [closer to the upper surface of lens 10] and an upper base length and width [further from upper surface of lens 10] which are less [shorter] than the lower base length and width; FIGS. 1, 4, 14H of Murata).
Regarding Claim 13, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second zone is a second annular region on the surface of the substrate, the second zone has a second radius and a second thickness, and the first zone and the second zone are concentric zones (the first zone of Murata [central projections 16] may be more specifically identified as peripheral region 38d having an annular shape which is concentric with annular-shaped edge region 38a [corresponding to edge portion 12 having first recesses 35a], wherein peripheral region 38d and edge region 38a each have a radius relative to optical axis X and a thickness corresponding to the difference between their inner radial distance and their outer radial distance; paragraphs [0056], [0057], [0078] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5 of Murata, but see especially FIG. 5 showing a top-down view relative to the side view of FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first wavelength range has a minimum wavelength greater than or equal to 380 nanometers and a maximum wavelength less than or equal to 750 nanometers (when the lens 10 is used in an imaging optical system the target wavelength range is visible light, i.e., 400 nm to 700 nm; paragraphs [0038], [0118] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata).
Regarding Claim 18, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the lens substrate has a transmittance ratio greater than or equal to 98% (reflectivity of lens 10 to visible light may be 0.3% or less, i.e., transmittance may be 99.7% or more; paragraphs [0041], [0118] of Murata).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata, or as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fermigier et al., US 2022/0050294 A1 (cited in the IDS of February 20, 2025).
Regarding Claims 15-17, Murata discloses the device capable of use for manipulation of visible light, i.e., 400 nm to 700 nm (see, e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0118] of Murata). Murata does not appear to explicitly disclose narrower specific numerical ranges of light, e.g., tailored for monochromatic [single color] light, such that: wherein the first wavelength range has a minimum wavelength greater than or equal to 450 nanometers and a maximum wavelength less than or equal to 485 nanometers [blue light], or has a minimum wavelength greater than or equal to 500 nanometers and a maximum wavelength less than or equal to 550 nanometers [green light], or has a minimum wavelength greater than or equal to 380 nanometers and a maximum wavelength less than or equal to 420 nanometers [purple light].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art because Murata discloses that the use in the visible light spectrum is contemplated (the visible light spectrum containing each of the colors therein), and it is known that adjustment of the dimensions (e.g., pitch and height) of the pyramid structures [projections 16] correlates with a change in the wavelengths which undergo an anti-reflective effect (see, e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4 of Murata).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any of the claimed narrow ranges of light, generally corresponding to specific colors of the visible spectrum, e.g., for a specific monochromatic [single color] utility.
Furthermore, Fermigier is related to Murata with respect to optical device having nanostructures.
Fermigier teaches specific narrow ranges of light, corresponding to specific colors of the visible spectrum, e.g., light beam may comprise green light, specifically wavelengths of about 500-560 nm, or red light 615-645 nm, green light 520-550 nm, or blue light 435-465 nm (see paragraphs [0258], [0259] of Fermigier).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed narrow ranges of light for the display device of Murata because such singular color configurations were in fact known in the prior art, as evidenced by paragraph [0258] of Fermigier.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Aurongzeb et al., US 2018/0011564 A1 (cited in the IDS of February 20, 2025).
Regarding Claim 19, Murata does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the lens substrate is at least partially composed of borosilicate glass.
Aurongzeb is related to Murata with respect to optical device having microstructures on polymer or glass substrate.
Aurongzeb teaches: wherein the lens substrate is at least partially composed of borosilicate glass (substrate may be a borosilicate glass; paragraph [0014] and FIG. 1 of Aurongzeb).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the borosilicate glass of Aurongzeb for the lens of Murata because such glass may be annealed or chemically toughened to provide a tough and damage resistant substrate, as taught in paragraph [0014] of Aurongzeb.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Gu et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0379143 A1.
Regarding Claim 20, Murata discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: wherein the lens substrate comprises an anti-reflective coating applied to a surface of the lens substrate.
Gu is related to Murata with respect to manufacture of anti-reflective structures.
Gu teaches: wherein the lens substrate comprises an anti-reflective coating applied to a surface of the lens substrate (an anti-reflective coating 670, 1270 may be applied to protrusions 662, 1262; paragraphs [0087], [0091], 0121], [0125] and FIGS. 6, 12D of Gu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the anti-reflective coating of Gu for the device of Murata because such coating can provide a destructive interference effect to further reduce reflection from the “hills and valleys”, i.e., the protrusions and spaces therebetween, as taught in paragraph [0005], [0029] of Gu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim (Claim 1), but would be allowable if amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 12, although the prior art discloses various lens substrates, including:
PNG
media_image2.png
172
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
53
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
