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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/21/26 has been entered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al (USPN 6220703) in view of EP357044.
Regarding claim 1, Evans et al teach:
A method for producing an optical article, the method comprising over- molding functional wafer onto a convex surface of a base lens to produce an ophthalmic lens, wherein the over-molding comprises:
affixing the functional wafer to the concave surface of a mold cavity of a molding apparatus (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is placed within an injection mold and then overmolded to form a lens) ; and
filling the mold cavity with molten base lens material (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is placed within an injection mold and then overmolded to form a lens);
wherein the functional wafer material has a glass transition temperature at or between at least 100 0C below the glass transition temperature of the base lens material to at or about 15 0C below the glass transition temperature of the base lens material (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is formed from PET, which has a common value Tg of 80C and is a polyester alloy; base lens is formed from polycarbonate (col 4:13-38; Tg 147C, which calculates to a difference within the claimed range);
wherein the material of the lens is polycarbonate, and he material of the wafer includes polymethylmethacrylate, copolyester, polyester alloy, and ali-cyclic polycarbonate (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is formed from PET such as co-PEN, which is a copolyester (col 4:47-52); base lens is formed from polycarbonate (col 4:13-38;Tg 147C)).
However, Evans et al do not teach an additive manufactured wafer. EP357044 teaches form a lens having an additive manufactured wafer/filter that is integrated with a base lens material, wherein the additive manufacturing of the wafer/filter allows for individual customization (paras. 0059,0063,0064, and 0070; figs 1-3. Since Evans et al and EP357044 are analogous with respect to lenses having a wafer/filter therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to additive manufacture the wafer/filter of Evans et al as taught by EP357044 in order to allows the production of customized lenses.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Evans et al (Evans et al: col 5:17-23; functional wafer 102 is subjected to a physical treatment, for example, scrub roughening of the surface of the wafer to achieve a “Velcro-like” effect; it should be noted that “scrub roughening” is a technical term in the adhesion art that is conventionally defined by a roughness of 0.3µm to 1.5µm Ra (0.333µm to 1.665µm RMS), which is greater than the claimed 50nm RMS).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by Evans et al since the wafer is back injection molded, i.e. the pressure of the injected material presses against the wafer to force and deform it against the mold surface.
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by Evans et al since the wafer is back injection molded, i.e. the pressure of the injected material presses against the wafer to force and deform it against the mold surface.
Regarding claim 5, the production of a product having a specific roughness is a mere obvious matter of choice dependent on the desired final product. Since lenses having the claimed surface roughness are well-known in the lens art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the mold of Evans et al to impart the claimed roughness onto the molded lens of Evans et al in order to produce a high-quality product.
Regarding claim 6, such is taught by the above combination of Evans et al and EP357044 since EP357044 teaches a filter (paras. 0006-0013).
Regarding claim 8, Evans et al do not teach heating the molding cavity to a constant temperature prior to providing the mold with the molten base lens material. Since the step of pre-heating a mold is well-known in the molding art to prevent the formation of a skin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to preheat the mold of Evans et al before the step of injecting in order to produce a lens without an unwanted skin layer.
Regarding claim 9, Evans et al do not teach the claimed mold materials. Since molds of the claimed materials are well-known in the lens art for its durability and smoothness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the molds of Evans et al from the claimed materials in order to produce smooth high-quality lenses.
Regarding claim 14, Evans et al do not teach the claimed material for the functional wafer. Since wafers of the claimed materials are well-known in the lens art for its durability and clarity, and the claimed materials are art-recognized substitutes for PET, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the wafer of Evans et al from one of the claimed materials since they are art-recognized substitutes that achieve the same purpose and allow for the production of diverse lenses.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al (USPN 6220703) in view of EP357044.
Regarding claim 17, Evans et al teach:
A method for producing an optical article, the method comprising over- molding functional wafer onto a convex surface of a base lens to produce an ophthalmic lens, wherein the over-molding comprises:
affixing the functional wafer to the concave surface of a mold cavity of a molding apparatus (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is placed within an injection mold and then overmolded to form a lens) ; and
filling the mold cavity with molten base lens material (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is placed within an injection mold and then overmolded to form a lens);
wherein the functional wafer material has a glass transition temperature at or between at least 100 0C below the glass transition temperature of the base lens material to at or about 15 0C below the glass transition temperature of the base lens material (Evans et al: col 7:12-37; fig 1; functional wafer 102 is formed from PET, which has a common value Tg of 80C and is a polyester alloy; base lens is formed from polycarbonate (col 4:13-38; Tg 147C, which calculates to a difference within the claimed range);
wherein the additive manufactured functional wafer is a wafer of non-optical quality having a surface roughness greater than 50nm RMS (Evans et al: col 5:17-23; functional wafer 102 is subjected to a physical treatment, for example, scrub roughening of the surface of the wafer to achieve a “Velcro-like” effect; it should be noted that “scrub roughening” is a technical term in the adhesion art that is conventionally defined by a roughness of 0.3µm to 1.5µm Ra (0.333µm to 1.665µm RMS), which is greater than the claimed 50nm RMS).
However, Evans et al do not teach an additive manufactured wafer. EP357044 teaches form a lens having an additive manufactured wafer/filter that is integrated with a base lens material, wherein the additive manufacturing of the wafer/filter allows for individual customization (paras. 0059,0063,0064, and 0070; figs 1-3. Since Evans et al and EP357044 are analogous with respect to lenses having a wafer/filter therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to additive manufacture the wafer/filter of Evans et al as taught by EP357044 in order to allow the production of customized lenses.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Evans et al do not teach the material of the claimed wafer since PET is not a polyester alloy. Though applicant’s argument is correct; it should be noted that Evans et al teach the functional wafer 102 can be formed from co-PEN, which is a copolyester (col 4:47-52; Evans et al cites USPN 5882774, which describes in detail an optical film of co-PEN material).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Both USP20130329184 and EP4347845 teach lenses having a wafer/filter therein. KR20070093405 and USP20080095997 teach PMMA and PET are substitutable alternatives for optical lenses. USPN 7906047 teaches an optical wafer made of PMMA. Both JP3571021 and CN100406227 teach optical products having a surface roughness greater than 50nm RMS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
