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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Examiner notes that the applicant should specifically point out the support for any and all amendments and show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Reference numerals or letters are not required by this rule. Therefore, the rejection as it relates to reference numerals or letters must be withdrawn…showing the thickness of the coating film on the vertical axis and the rotation angle from the zero-o'clock on the horizontal axis," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot and Examiner reminds the applicant that the new specification objection is for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Examiner invites applicant to specifically point out where (in the as-filed specification) there is proper antecedent basis for: the first thickness, second thickness, third thickness, the second radial direction being opposite to the first radial direction, and a third thickness is in a third region extending in a third radial direction between the first radial direction and the second radial direction. This is not an exhaustive list, for the as-filed specification of the instant application is replete with improper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP § 714 & 37 CFR 1.121. Consistency of numbering/lettering/labeling, and proper antecedent basis that ensures that a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably identify elements within the claims and description, is a matter of formatting while the depiction of every claimed feature is a matter of substantive disclosure. Examiner submits that applicant’s argument has conflated the two and fails to address the deficiency of the absence of any visual nor descriptive representation of the claimed elements.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The specification at page 25, lines 17-28 describes three different directions. (1) a predetermined direction… degrees or 260 to 300 degrees. Each of these three directions is illustrated in Fig. 7," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "which is six-o'clock or 180 degrees, and (3) other directions, which are between 0 and 180 degrees or between 180 degrees and 360 degrees. The following passages describe narrower angular values for the other directions being preferably between 60 to 100 degrees or 260 to 300 degrees") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the applicant's argument that " Fig. 7 also (on the vertical axis) also clearly discloses how the thickness of the coating film varies with rotation angle (or radial direction)…which satisfies 37 C.F.R. 1.75(d)(1). Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot and Examiner reminds the applicant that the “rules” being referred to (within 37 CFR 1.84 and MPEP § 608.02) here governs how features are referenced, not what features must be illustrated. The controlling requirement for what must be depicted is found in 37 CFR 1.83(a), which explicitly states “[t]he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” Consistency of numbering/lettering/labeling, and proper antecedent basis that ensures that a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably identify elements within the claims and description, is a matter of formatting while the depiction of every claimed feature is a matter of substantive disclosure. Examiner submits that applicant’s argument has conflated the two and fails to address the deficiency of the absence of any visual nor descriptive representation of the claimed elements. Examiner reminds the applicant that a graph is not a structural disclosure of the claimed article. The cited graphs merely depict relationships between variables and do not show the physical arrangement, boundaries, or identity of the claimed elements within an eyeglass lens. The graphs fail to demonstrate where each claimed element is located in the lens, how the elements are structurally defined or distinguished, etc. Without a figure corresponding to the plotted data to specific structures of the lens, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine that the graphs illustrate all claimed elements. Thus, the graphs are insufficient to support and/or clearly disclose the claimed structure. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).) “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” Examiner submits that the detailed illustration of the first thickness, second thickness, third thickness, the second radial direction being opposite to the first radial direction, and a third thickness is in a third region extending in a third radial direction between the first radial direction and the second radial direction is essential for a proper understanding of the invention. See MPEP § 608. See drawing objections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Office Action objects to the abstract, stating "In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions…allegation that the abstract of an application directed to a spectacle lens requires an explanation of the general nature of a compound or composition," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot, for “the chemical formula for an organosilicon compound is no longer recited in the claims,” as stated by the applicant.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The MPEP does not constitute substantive rule making. "The guidance in the manual does not have the force and effect of law or the force of the rules in Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulation…"May" under US law is an option, not a requirement. Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection," the Examiner traverses. Argument is moot, for “the chemical formula for an organosilicon compound is no longer recited in the claims,” as stated by the applicant.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Office Action rejects claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. The Office Action alleges that features related to stray light ratio and suppressing progression of near-sightedness are "optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions…This has no bearing on definiteness, nor does it provide precedent for construing a functional claim term as optional. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, “wherein the eyeglass lens is configured to suppress progression of near-sightedness” is indefinite because it merely recites a desired result or function without specifying the structural features or parameters that achieve this result. Claim 4 does not define how suppression is measured, the degree of effect required, or the conditions under which it is evaluated. It is unclear which lenses fall within the scope of the claim and satisfy the result, and thus, the boundaries of the claim cannot be ascertained by a person having ordinary skill in the art. “In the current instance, “to suppress progression of near-sightedness” in Claim 4 merely recites a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, an eyeglass lens being configured to suppress progression of near-sightedness is dependent on a biological response of a wearer’s eye and is not an intrinsic, measurable property of the claimed eyeglass lens, and thus, this limitation is purely functional and result-oriented. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See Final Rejection dated 07 November 2025. See § 112(b) rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See § 103 rejection(s) for the new ground(s) of rejection presented below in the present Office action.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant requests rejoinder of claim 8 because it recites features that are patentable for reasons similar to claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. Furthermore, where restriction was required between a product and a process of making and/or using the product, and the product invention was elected and subsequently found allowable, all claims to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim for the claims directed to that process invention to be eligible for rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04(b). In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder.” See MPEP § 821.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention of a different statutory category (See Election of Original Presentation in Election/Restrictions section of Final Rejection mailed 07 November 2025), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 February 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the first thickness, second thickness, third thickness, the second radial direction being opposite to the first radial direction, and a third thickness is in a third region extending in a third radial direction between the first radial direction and the second radial direction. This is not an exhaustive list, for the as-filed specification of the instant application is replete with improper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP § 714 & 37 CFR 1.121.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show (See MPEP 608.02(d) for further guidance) every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first thickness, second thickness, third thickness, the second radial direction being opposite to the first radial direction, and a third thickness is in a third region extending in a third radial direction between the first radial direction and the second radial direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 1, the limitation recites “a height of more than 50% the substrate protruding portions is 0.5 to 2 μm” appears to be a grammatical error. It is unclear what “more than 50%” modifies, for it is ambiguous whether the claimed height refers to heights of more than 50% of a plurality of substrate protruding portions or more than 50% of the height of each individual substrate protruding portion, or another comparative baseline.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 4 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the limitation recites "the thickness of the coating film of the coating film base portion" at the bottom of page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, for “the coating film base portion” is not previously recited in the claim(s).
Furthermore, and in Claim 1, the limitation reciting “a smallest value of the thickness of the coating film at the bases of the substrate protruding portions is 0.40 to 1.20 times the thickness of the coating film of the coating film base portion…is 0.10 to 0.90” is indefinite because it fails to clearly define the reference population of measurements from which the extrema (e.g., smallest value of the thickness of…, a smallest value of difference values of…, a largest value of difference of…, etc.) are derived. In other words, the limitation does not define how many coating film convex portions there be must to satisfy the requirement, whether the largest value of thickness is global or local with respect to the coating film, how measurement locations (e.g., sampling resolution/spatial density of measurements taken across the lens or boundaries of each convex portion) are determined, etc. Thus, there are multiple reasonable interpretations that yield different extrema values, different ratio values, and unclear metes and bounds of the claim. Also, the phrase “difference values of (a largest value of the thickness of the coating film - thickness of the coating film at a vertex of the coating film convex portions)” introduces a nested comparative calculation without defining a consistent dataset or set of variables, for this further introduces ambiguity when determining the maximum and minimum difference values. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim(s).
With respect to Claim 4, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g).
In the current instance, “to suppress progression of near-sightedness” in Claim 4 merely recites a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, an eyeglass lens being configured to suppress progression of near-sightedness is dependent on a biological response of a wearer’s eye and is not an intrinsic, measurable property of the claimed eyeglass lens, and thus, this limitation is purely functional and result-oriented. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of a spectacle lens.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchidani et al. US 20200132441 A1 (herein after "Uchidani") in view of Takeda et al. US 20180162091 A1 (herein after "Takeda").
With respect to Claim 1, Uchidani discloses an eyeglass lens (spectacle lens 1; [0022-54]; fig. 1-12) comprising:
a lens substrate (spectacle lens main body 2; [0023] fig. 2) with a plurality of substrate protruding portions (micro convex segments 6; [0024]) that protrude from a substrate base portion (protrude from convex/base surface 3; [0024]; as seen in fig. 1) on a surface of the lens substrate (of spectacle lens main body 2; [0024]); and
a coating film (antireflection/AR film 10 formed on surface of each hard coat layer 8; [0023]) that covers the plurality of substrate protruding portions (hard coat layers 8 formed on convex surface 3, and thus, film 10 covering micro convex segments 6; [0024]; as see in fig. 2) and the substrate base portion (convex/base surface 3; [0024]); and
wherein
thickness of the coating film (antireflection/AR film 10 formed on surface of each hard coat layer 8) varies in regions surrounding the substrate protruding portions (film 10 thickness varied in surrounding regions of micro convex segments 6 as seen in fig. 2 & fig. 3-4, 6-7, & 11),
such that, when each of the plurality of substrate protruding portions (micro convex segments 6) is viewed in a plan view (fig. 1 & 2 illustrating front and cross-sectional view orthogonal to plan view), respectively, the coating film (antireflection/AR film 10 formed on surface of each hard coat layer 8) varies in thickness around each respective one of the plurality of substrate protruding portions (film 10 thickness varied in surrounding regions of micro convex segments 6 as seen in fig. 2 & fig. 3-4, 6-7, & 11) with a first thickness (thickness of selected antireflection agent such as ZrO2, MgF2, or Al2O3 of antireflection film 10; [0027]) in a first region (centered upmost top layer of antireflection/AR film 10; as seen in fig. 2) extending in a first radial direction (antireflection/AR film 10 extends in radial direction with respect to spectacle lens main body 2; as seen in fig. 2), a second thickness (thickness of selected thermoplastic resin or UV-curable resin of hard coat layer 8; [0023], [0026]) in a second region (centered top-intermediate layer of hard coat layer 8; as seen in fig. 2) extending in a second radial direction (hard coat layer 8 extends in radial direction with respect to spectacle lens main body 2; as seen in fig. 2),
a height of more than 50% the substrate protruding portions (micro convex segments 6; [0024]) is 0.5 to 2 μm (height of 0.8 μm; [0024]; desired that the height of the micro convex segment 6 be 0.1 to 10 μm; [0029]),
defocus power of the coating film convex portions (multiple convex portions of convex surface 3; [0023]; as seen in fig. 2) is 2.50 D to 6.50 D (refractive power of micro convex segment 6 is larger than refractive power of base section/convex surface 3 of spectacle lens 1 by 2.00 to 5.00 diopters, if refractive power of micro convex segment 6 ≈ 3.00 diopter; [0046], then defocus power of convex surface 3 ≈ -0.50 D to 3.50 D; [0046]), and
refractive power of the substrate protruding portions (micro convex segments 6; [0024]) is 2.50 D to 6.50 D (refractive power of micro convex segment 6 is larger than refractive power of base section/convex surface 3 of spectacle lens 1 by 2.00 to 5.00 diopters, if refractive power of convex surface 3 of spectacle lens 1 ≈ 0.00 diopter; [0033], then refractive power of micro convex segment 6 ≈ 3.00 diopter; [0046]).
Uchidani does not disclose the following limitations: the first thickness and the second thickness being thinner than the third thickness, the second radial direction being opposite to the first radial direction, and a third thickness is in a third region extending in a third radial direction between the first radial direction and the second radial direction, the thickness of the coating film at bases of the substrate protruding portions is 0.5 to 6.0 μm, wherein the coating film is an organosilicon compound; the thickness of the coating film in coating film convex portions, which are on the substrate protruding portions, is 0.5 to 6.0 μm, a smallest value of the thickness of the coating film at the bases of the substrate protruding portions is 0.40 to 1.20 times the thickness of the coating film of the coating film base portion, and in a cross-section of the lens that includes centers of coating film convex portions [a smallest value of difference values of (a largest value of the thickness of the coating film - thickness of the coating film at a vertex of the coating film convex portions)] / [a largest value of difference of (the largest value of the thickness of the coating film - the thickness of the coating film at the vertex of the coating film convex portions)] is 0.10 to 0.90.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Takeda teaches a translucent structure (6; [0172]), wherein a thickness of an antireflection layer ((2) of layer 7, thickness being 50 to 300 nm; [0176], [0185]) is thicker than a water/oil-repellent layer (9, thickness being 1 to 50 nm; [0192]) and an antiglare layer (5, e.g., area ratio of second convex portions 5b of antireflection layer 7 higher than area ratio of second convex portions 5b of antiglare layer 5; [0101], [0187]), a left radial direction (peak extending from water/oil-repellent layer 9 and with respect to left uneven surface of translucent structure 6; fig. 7; [0172]) is opposite to a right radial direction (valley extending from antiglare layer 5 and with respect to right uneven surface of translucent structure 6; fig. 7; [0172]), and the thickness of the antireflection layer ((2) of layer 7, thickness being 50 to 300 nm; [0176], [0185]) is in a centered region (middle of left and right peaks of uneven surface of translucent structure 6; fig. 7; [0172]) extending in a centered radial direction (fig. 7) between the water/oil-repellent layer (9, thickness being 1 to 50 nm; [0192], peak extending from water/oil-repellent layer 9 and with respect to left uneven surface of translucent structure 6; fig. 7; [0172]) and antiglare layer (5; [0187], valley extending from antiglare layer 5 and with respect to right uneven surface of translucent structure 6; fig. 7; [0172]), the diameter and/or thickness of the second convex portions (5b of antiglare layer 5 with antireflection layer 7 and water/oil-repellant layer 9 forming coating film; [0101], [0118]) at bases of translucent structure (6; [0173]) comprising a translucent substrate (3; [0173]; fig. 6) is 0.600 to 1.500 μm ([0101]), wherein the coating film ([0118]) is an organosilicon compound (coating composition comprises at least one of silica precursor and particles, and a liquid medium, as silica precursor, a silane compound such as a known alkoxysilane or its hydrolyzed condensate is used; [0119]); a half width of a projection distribution (value of the half width of the protruding portions; [0105]) in the coating film ([0118]) convex portions (e.g., 5b; [0101]) on translucent structure (6; [0173]) comprising a translucent substrate (3; [0173]; fig. 6) is at least 500 nm ([0105]), a smallest boundary value of the diameter and/or thickness of the second convex portions (5b of antiglare layer 5 with antireflection layer 7 and water/oil-repellant layer 9 forming coating film; [0101], [0118]) at bases of translucent structure (6; [0173]) comprising a translucent substrate (3; [0173]; fig. 6) is 0.600 μm ([0101]), which is .83 times the half width of the projection distribution (value of the half width of the protruding portions; [0105]) in the coating film ([0118]) convex portions (e.g., 5b; [0101]) on translucent structure (6; [0173]) comprising a translucent substrate (3; [0173]; fig. 6) being at least 500 nm ([0105]), and in a cross-sectional view (fig. 7; [0172]) that includes centers of coating film ([0118]) convex portions (e.g., 5b; [0101]), {[a smallest boundary value of difference values of ((e.g., antireflection layer (2) of layer 7, thickness 50 to 300 nm; ([0176], [0185]) + water/oil-repellent layer 9, thickness 1 to 50 nm; [[0192]) + average diameter of second convex portions (5b; [0101]) being 0.600 to 1.500 μm; ([0101]) ≈ 1850 nm or 1.85 μm) – e.g., average diameter of second convex portions (5b; [0101]) being 0.600 to 1.500 μm; ([0101]) ≈ 1500 nm or 1.500 μm] ≈ 350 nm or 0.35 μm / [a largest value of differences of ((e.g., antireflection layer (2) of layer 7, thickness 50 to 300 nm; ([0176], [0185]) + water/oil-repellent layer 9, thickness 1 to 50 nm; [[0192]) + average diameter of second convex portions (5b; [0101]) being 0.600 to 1.500 μm; ([0101]) ≈ 1850 nm or 1.85 μm) – e.g., average diameter of second convex portions (5b; [0101]) being 0.600 to 1.500 μm; ([0101]) ≈ 600 nm or 0.600 μm] ≈ 1250 nm or 1.25 μm} is ≈ 0.28 ([0101], [0176], [0185], [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating film of Uchidani to include the technical features of selecting a coating composition containing an organosilicon compound and adjusting the sizes and proportions of the coating film layers, for the purpose of achieving excellent and low sparkle properties, providing a translucent structure and uneven surface having a low haze factor within an article, and acquiring the advantages of manufacturing a coating composition that has good dispersion stability, as taught by Takeda ([0022], [0101], [0135]). Furthermore, a change of size and proportion (e.g., first thickness and the second thickness being thinner than the third thickness, thickness of the coating film at bases of the substrate protruding portions, and centers of coating film convex portions) 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). It has also been held that the selection of a known material (e.g., wherein the coating film is an organosilicon compound) based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 4, Uchidani in view of Takeda teaches the eyeglass lens according to Claim 1, wherein the eyeglass lens (spectacle lens 1; [0022-54]; fig. 1-12) is configured to suppress progression of near-sightedness (progress of ametropia such as myopia i.e., nearsightedness of a spectacle wearer can be suppressed by forming, on the convex/object side surface 3 of the spectacle lens 1 micro convex segments 6 in spherical surface shapes each with a curvature different from the curvature of the convex surface; [0028]; fig. 3 & 4; Uchidani).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating film of Uchidani to include the technical features of selecting a coating composition containing an organosilicon compound and adjusting the sizes and proportions of the coating film layers, for the purpose of achieving excellent and low sparkle properties, providing a translucent structure and uneven surface having a low haze factor within an article, and acquiring the advantages of manufacturing a coating composition that has good dispersion stability, as taught by Takeda ([0022], [0101], [0135]). Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., to suppress progression of near-sightedness) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hoshino et al. US 20120328830 A1 discloses a coating film and coating film formation method substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 26 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872