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 04/07/2025 and 10/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 1-20 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 “a surface of the hydrophobic film layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface with a first micro-nano structure.” The term “hydrophobic rough surface” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required such that a surface would be considered a “hydrophobic rough surface” as it is unclear what degree of surface roughness is required for a surface to be considered “rough.” Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes “a first micro-nano structure.” It is unclear if the “first micro-nano structure” should be of a nanometer size, of a micrometer size, or some other size, or if any structure would be considered a “micro-nanostructure.” For the purposes of examination, any hydrophobic film layer with a nanostructure or a microstructure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Similarly, claim 4 recites that “a surface of the hydrophobic layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface.” The term “hydrophobic rough surface” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required such that a surface would be considered a “hydrophobic rough surface” as it is unclear what degree of surface roughness is required for a surface to be considered “rough.” For the purposes of examination, any hydrophobic film layer meeting the structural requirements of claim 1 will be interpreted as reading on the claimed “hydrophobic rough surface” of claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 4 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites “a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “a second micro-nano structure.” It is unclear if the “second micro-nano structure” should be of a nanometer size, of a micrometer size, or some other size, or if any structure would be considered a “micro-nanostructure.” For the purposes of examination, any nanostructure or a microstructure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 5 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 7 recites that “a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer.” The term “gradually change” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required such that the refractive index can be considered to “gradually change” as it is unclear what refractive index change would be considered “gradual.” Moreover, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require a multi-layered structure, a gradient refractive index layer, or some additional structure. Further, it is unclear how the refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer can change from a refractive index “corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer” to something else, as the refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer must correspond to the first anti-reflection layer. For the purposes of examination, any refractive index change will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 8 recites that “the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top.” The term “gradually tapers” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required such that the taper is a “gradual” taper, and as such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purposes of examination, any tapered structure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 8 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites that “the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion, wherein a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion,” and the claim also recites “a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. As such, it is unclear what is encompassed by “a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion” as the dimensions specified are all in nanometers. Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes “a size of the bottom of the protrusion” as it is unclear if the “size” is referring to a length, a width, an area, or some other dimension. For the purposes of examination, any protrusion having the claimed height and a width of the bottom of the protrusion in the claimed range will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 13 recites that “the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions” and how “micro-sized” and “nano-sized” depressions should be defined to be different. Specifically it is unclear what range of sizes would be considered “micro-sized” and what range would be considered “nano-sized.” Furthermore, the term “uniformly arranged” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniformly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required such that the depressions would be considered “uniformly arranged.” For the purposes of examination, any depressions that are arranged in a repeated pattern will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites that “the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “light trapping layer” as it is unclear what structure is required to be “light trapping.” For the purposes of examination, any anti-reflection layer that forms a repeated structure or interference coating or porous coating will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 16 recites that “a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “a third micro-nano structure.” It is unclear if the “third micro-nano structure” should be of a nanometer size, of a micrometer size, or some other size, or if any structure would be considered a “micro-nanostructure.” For the purposes of examination, any nanostructure or a microstructure will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 18 recites that “the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “an active underlayer” that is “the same as a base material.” Specifically, it is unclear what is required for a layer to be “active” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the same as a base material.” It is unclear if some structure is required for the layer to be active, if some particular material is required to be considered active, or if any layer would read on the claimed “active underlayer.” For the purposes of examination, any underlayer formed of a material of the first anti-reflection layer will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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) 1-9 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0196885).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches an electronic device, comprising a housing (12) and an optical assembly (10), an optical component in the optical assembly is located in an accommodating space of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0033-0035), and an optical cover plate (14) is located on the housing and covers a light-incident surface of the optical component (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0033-0035), wherein the optical assembly comprising:
the optical component (10) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0047); and
the optical cover plate (14), wherein the optical cover plate comprises an optical body layer, the optical body layer blocks a light-incident surface of the optical component and has a light-transmissive area arranged opposite to the optical component (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0033-0042); and
the optical cover plate further comprises a hydrophobic film layer (22, 122), the hydrophobic film layer is light-transmissive, is located on a side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and covers the light-transmissive area, wherein a surface of the hydrophobic film layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface with a first micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0033-0042).
Regarding claim 2, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Singh further teaches that the optical component is a camera module, and the camera module comprises a lens, wherein the optical body layer blocks a light-incident surface of the lens; and a position of the light-transmissive area in the optical body layer is opposite to a position of the lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 2, as above.
Singh further teaches that the camera module further comprises a module body, the lens is located on a side of the module body facing the optical cover plate, wherein the non-light-transmissive area in the optical body layer surrounds a peripheral edge of the light-transmissive area, and the non-light- transmissive area blocks the module body (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Singh further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer of the optical cover plate comprises a hydrophobic layer, the hydrophobic layer is located on a side of the optical body layer facing the optical component and covers the light-transmissive area, and a surface of the hydrophobic layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0033-0042).
Regarding claim 5, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Singh further teaches that the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate and a first anti-reflection layer (22, 22A, 120AR, 122AR), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer, and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 6, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 7, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 8, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions (32), wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 9, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Singh further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 12, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Singh further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 13, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 14, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 15, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer, the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 16, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 17, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 18, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Regarding claim 19, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 18, as above.
Singh further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (Paragraph 0045).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalyankar et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2022/119679 A1; hereinafter – “Kalyankar).
Regarding claim 1, Kalyankar teaches an electronic device, comprising a housing (12) and an optical assembly (40), an optical component (30) in the optical assembly is located in an accommodating space of the housing (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025), and an optical cover plate (50) is located on the housing and covers a light-incident surface of the optical component (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025), wherein the optical assembly comprising:
the optical component (30) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025); and
the optical cover plate (52), wherein the optical cover plate comprises an optical body layer, the optical body layer blocks a light-incident surface of the optical component and has a light-transmissive area arranged opposite to the optical component (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062); and
the optical cover plate further comprises a hydrophobic film layer (68, 106, 94), the hydrophobic film layer is light-transmissive, is located on a side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and covers the light-transmissive area, wherein a surface of the hydrophobic film layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface with a first micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 2, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the optical component is a camera module, and the camera module comprises a lens, wherein the optical body layer blocks a light-incident surface of the lens; and a position of the light-transmissive area in the optical body layer is opposite to a position of the lens (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025).
Regarding claim 3, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 2, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the camera module further comprises a module body, the lens is located on a side of the module body facing the optical cover plate, wherein the non-light-transmissive area in the optical body layer surrounds a peripheral edge of the light-transmissive area, and the non-light- transmissive area blocks the module body (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025).
Regarding claim 4, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer of the optical cover plate comprises a hydrophobic layer, the hydrophobic layer is located on a side of the optical body layer facing the optical component and covers the light-transmissive area, and a surface of the hydrophobic layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate and a first anti-reflection layer (66, 94), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer, and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 6, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 7, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 8, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions (94), wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 9, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 12, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 13, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 15, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer (64, 106), the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 16, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 17, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Regarding claim 19, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 18, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0040, 0047, and 0049).
Regarding claim 20, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a perfluoropolyethers plating layer (Paragraphs 0049, 0064, and 0093).
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) 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Schulz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,914,158; hereinafter – “Schulz”).
Regarding claim 5, Singh teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Singh further teaches that the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate and a first anti-reflection layer (22, 22A, 120AR, 122AR), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer, and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
While Singh teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim with the anti-reflection layer having a second micro-nano structure, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Schulz.
Schulz teaches an optical element with an anti-fog layer comprising an optical cover plate comprising an optical body layer (1, 2) and a hydrophobic film layer (9) that is a rough surface with a first micro-nano structure and the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate (1) and a first anti-reflection layer (2), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer (9), and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Schulz teaches this anti-reflection layer with a second micro-nano structure so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
Therefore, even if Singh did not disclose the anti-reflection layer as claimed, 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 electronic device of Singh with the anti-reflection layer having a second micro-nano structure of Schulz so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11).
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions (32), wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions, wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Singh further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Singh fails to explicitly disclose that the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion, wherein a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.
However, Schulz further teaches that the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion, wherein a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33-47).
Schulz teaches this size of the protrusions so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
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 electronic device of Singh with the size of the protrusions of Schulz so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 4, as above.
Singh fails to explicitly disclose that a thickness of the hydrophobic layer is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm.
However, Schulz further teaches that a thickness of the hydrophobic layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 6, L. 3-10).
Schulz teaches this thickness of the hydrophobic layer such that “the cleaning of the surface provided with the nanostructure is facilitated” (C. 6, L. 3-10), so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
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 electronic device of Singh such that the hydrophobic layer has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm as suggested by Schulz such that “the cleaning of the surface provided with the nanostructure is facilitated” so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11; C. 6, L. 3-10), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 12, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Singh further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer, the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer (8), the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Singh further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0038 and 0040-0047).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 3, L. 38-52; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Singh in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 18, as above.
Singh further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (Paragraph 0045).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 2, L. 51-62; C. 3, L. 38-52; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Claim(s) 5-20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyankar in view of Schulz.
Regarding claim 5, Kalyankar teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate and a first anti-reflection layer (66, 94), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer, and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
While Kalyankar teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim with the anti-reflection layer having a second micro-nano structure, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Schulz.
Schulz teaches an optical element with an anti-fog layer comprising an optical cover plate comprising an optical body layer (1, 2) and a hydrophobic film layer (9) that is a rough surface with a first micro-nano structure and the optical body layer of the optical cover plate comprises a substrate (1) and a first anti-reflection layer (2), the first anti-reflection layer covers a side of the substrate facing the hydrophobic film layer (9), and a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing the hydrophobic film layer is a rough surface with a second micro-nano structure, wherein the first micro-nano structure is adhered to and covers the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Schulz teaches this anti-reflection layer with a second micro-nano structure so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
Therefore, even if Singh did not disclose the anti-reflection layer as claimed, 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 electronic device of Kalyankar with the anti-reflection layer having a second micro-nano structure of Schulz so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11).
Regarding claim 6, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a shape of the first micro-nano structure matches a shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a refractive index of the first anti-reflection layer is configured to: gradually change from a refractive index corresponding to the first anti-reflection layer to a refractive index corresponding to air in a direction from the substrate to the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions (94), wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of protrusions, wherein a bottom of the protrusion is connected to the substrate, a top of the protrusion is arranged facing the hydrophobic film layer, and the protrusion gradually tapers from the bottom to the top (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that bottoms of the plurality of protrusions are connected (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Kalyankar fails to explicitly disclose that the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion, wherein a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.
However, Schulz further teaches that the protrusion is a micro-sized and/or nano-sized protrusion, wherein a height of the protrusion is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm, and a size of the bottom of the protrusion is greater than or 150 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33-47).
Schulz teaches this size of the protrusions so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
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 electronic device of Kalyankar with the size of the protrusions of Schulz so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 11, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 4, as above.
Kalyankar fails to explicitly disclose that a thickness of the hydrophobic layer is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm.
However, Schulz further teaches that a thickness of the hydrophobic layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 6, L. 3-10).
Schulz teaches this thickness of the hydrophobic layer such that “the cleaning of the surface provided with the nanostructure is facilitated” (C. 6, L. 3-10), so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer” (C. 2, L. 5-11).
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 electronic device of Kalyankar such that the hydrophobic layer has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 30 nm as suggested by Schulz such that “the cleaning of the surface provided with the nanostructure is facilitated” so “that it has a color neutral effect, including in the case of oblique light incidence, and has a good reflection reducing effect” and “the fog reducing effect is only marginally impaired by the nanostructure created on the surface of the fog reducing polymer layer,” as taught by Schulz (C. 2, L. 5-11; C. 6, L. 3-10), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 12, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 8, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in an array (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the second micro-nano structure comprises a plurality of depressions, wherein the depressions are micro-sized and/or nano-sized depressions, and the plurality of depressions are uniformly arranged on the optical body layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the first anti-reflection layer is a light trapping layer or a porous coating layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer (64, 106), the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the hydrophobic film layer further comprises an underlayer (8), the underlayer is attached to a light-transmissive area on the side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer covers the underlayer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a surface of the underlayer facing the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer has a third micro-nano structure, wherein the third micro-nano structure covers the second micro-nano structure in the optical body layer and is adhered between the second micro-nano structure and the first micro-nano structure; and a shape of the third micro-nano structure matches the shape of the second micro-nano structure (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that a thickness of the underlayer is less than the thickness of the hydrophobic layer in the hydrophobic film layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 15, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the underlayer is an active underlayer the same as a base material of the first anti-reflection layer in the optical body layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 3, L. 38-52; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 18, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0040, 0047, and 0049).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the base material of the first anti-reflection layer is silicon dioxide, and the active underlayer is a silicon dioxide layer (See e.g. Fig. 4; C. 2, L. 51-62; C. 3, L. 38-52; C. 5, L. 33 – C. 6, L. 10).
Regarding claim 20, Kalyankar in view of Schulz teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Kalyankar further teaches that the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a perfluoropolyethers plating layer (Paragraphs 0049, 0064, and 0093).
Additionally, Schulz further teaches that the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a fluorine containing polymer plating layer (C. 2, L. 53-62).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sing or Singh in view of Schulz, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kalyankar.
Regarding claim 20, Singh and Singh in view of Schulz each teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, as above.
Singh fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a perfluoropolyethers plating layer.
However, Schulz further teaches that the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a fluorine containing polymer plating layer (C. 2, L. 53-62).
Furthermore, Kalyankar teaches electronic devices with lenses comprising a housing (12) and an optical assembly (40), an optical component (30) in the optical assembly is located in an accommodating space of the housing (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025), and an optical cover plate (50) is located on the housing and covers a light-incident surface of the optical component (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025), wherein the optical assembly comprising: the optical component (30) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0020-0025); and the optical cover plate (52), wherein the optical cover plate comprises an optical body layer, the optical body layer blocks a light-incident surface of the optical component and has a light-transmissive area arranged opposite to the optical component (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062); and the optical cover plate further comprises a hydrophobic film layer (68, 106, 94), the hydrophobic film layer is light-transmissive, is located on a side of the optical body layer facing the optical component, and covers the light-transmissive area, wherein a surface of the hydrophobic film layer facing the optical component is a hydrophobic rough surface with a first micro-nano structure (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-12; Paragraphs 0025-0026, 0034-0038, 0040-0045, 0047-0051, and 0062), wherein the hydrophobic layer of the hydrophobic film layer is a perfluoropolyethers plating layer (Paragraphs 0049, 0064, and 0093).
Kalyankar teaches this perfluoropolyethers plating layer as a suitable material for “an anti-smudge coating…that serves as an oleophobic layer” (Paragraph 0049) to “enhance optical performance (Paragraph 0005).
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 electronic device of Singh with the perfluoropolyethers plating layer of Kalyankar for “an anti-smudge coating…that serves as an oleophobic layer” to “enhance optical performance, as taught by Kalyankar (Paragraphs 0005 and 0049), and 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 use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kalyankar et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0358920) is a continuation of Kalyankar that teaches similar electronic devices with lenses.
Nakamura et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0399502) teaches a film and optical element including hydrophobic layers.
Pethuraja et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,400,343) teaches a highly durable hydrophobic antireflection structure having a similar configuration.
Ko et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0041309) teaches an anti-reflection structure with a similar configuration and PFPE hydrophobic layer.
Sahara et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 104583811 A) teaches a glare-proof reflecting member having a similar hydrophobic coating on an anti-reflection layer.
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