DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 27, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it refers to “the mean light reflection factor Rv” without previously reciting or establishing that the article has or demonstrates “a mean light reflection factor Rv”. As such, “the mean light factor Rv” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 13 are indefinite because each depends directly or indirectly from claim 11, which is now cancelled. For the sake of compact prosecution, claims 12 and 13 are considered herein to depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from and require all of the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maury (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0227681).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, Maury teaches an ophthalmic lens (i.e. “optical article”) comprising a transparent substrate with a front main face and a rear main face, wherein at least one of the faces, either of which may be considered the “top face”, is coated with a multilayered antireflective coating (i.e. “top coating of the article”) that comprises at least a wetting layer, a metal layer, which may be a layer of silver, and an outermost layer, which may be ZnO, directly atop the metal layer (Abstract; par. 93,113). As evidenced by Applicant’s specification, which discloses that ZnO has antibacterial properties, the outermost, ZnO-containing layer on Maury’s top coating has antibacterial properties (Applicant’s published application, par. 81). Maury’s antibacterial, outermost layer “does not consist of metal” because it includes both metal and oxygen.
Maury’s antireflective top coating includes layers respectively having high and low refractive indexes, which can cause interference and produce the disclosed antireflective property (par. 2, 3, 7, 21, 23). Therefore, Maury’s top coating is a “multilayer interference coating”. Maury’s coated optical article also preferably demonstrates a mean reflection factor, Rv, on the “main” face (i.e. the “top face”) that is coated with the top coating discussed above of less than or equal to 1 %, which Maury teaches is typically measured at an incidence angle of 15° (par. 114, 115).
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed April 27, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury. Evidence for claims 6 and 7 is provided by the Polyanskiy (Polyanskiy, M. “Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants. Sci. Data, 2026, p. 1-3).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, and 13, as discussed above, Maury teaches an optical article including a transparent substrate and a multilayer, antireflective coating that is considered herein to anticipate the requirements of claims 1, 12, and 13.
To the extent that Maury’s teachings might be considered to differ from the current invention in that an optical article with the above-discussed coating and including all of the above-discussed features/properties is not explicitly exemplified, is noted that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to make such an article (i.e. a transparent optical article demonstrating the above-discussed Rv and including a multilayer, antireflective coating including a silver layer that is directly underneath an outermost ZnO layer) because Maury teaches each component/feature to be appropriate for his product. Additionally, although the outermost layer is not explicitly taught to consist of ZnO (i.e. “wherein the layer having antibacterial properties consists of the material having antibacterial properties”), the layer is presumed to consist of ZnO because Maury does not require it to contain other components. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the outermost layer on the multilayer top coating discussed above to consist of ZnO because Maury teaches that the layer can be made from ZnO without requiring it to comprise other materials (par. 93).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Maury teaches that the outermost layer, which is “a material having antibacterial properties”, may have a “high refractive index”, which is defined in the disclosure as having a refractive index of at least 1.55 at 25 °C and at a wavelength of 550 nm (par. 86, 87, 89). Figure 4 of Maury’s disclosure shows the transmission of light with wavelengths in the range of 480 to 580 at an angle of incidence of 0 ° substantially constant (Fig. 4, par. 39). As such, the refractive index, i.e. which is a measure of how the material bends light, of Maury’s coating, including its outermost layer, at 510 nm is expected to be substantially similar (i.e. and “at least 1.55 at 25 °C) to the refractive index at 550 nm. Additionally, as Maury teaches that the material may have a refractive index of “at least 1.55”, Maury renders obvious refractive indexes that are considerably higher, e.g. 2.0. See MPEP 2144.05. A material having a refractive index of 2.0 (or higher) at a wavelength of 550 nm is expected to also have a refractive index of greater than 1.55 at a wavelength of 510 nm. Furthermore, as evidenced by the Refractive Index Database, which shows that the refractive index of ZnO varies by less than 0.008 between the wavelengths of 510 nm and 550 nm (i.e. from 1.6292 to 1.6218) (first and second p.1), Maury’s ZnO film meets the claimed refractive index requirements.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0325693), which has an effective filing date of 12/18/2018, and further in view of Ding (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0171039).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Nomura teaches a spectacle lens (i.e. “optical article”) comprising a transparent substrate with a front main face and a rear main face, wherein at least one of the article’s main faces is coated with a multilayer interference coating that is an antireflective coating and is the top coating of the article, and wherein the outermost layer of the top coating comprises a material having antimicrobial properties (Abstract; par. 7, 12, 25, 31, 37). Nomura’s antibacterial coating (i.e. a “material having antibacterial properties”) includes silver particles and tungsten oxide particles (par. 31, 55, 56) and, therefore, does not consist of only metal (i.e. material also includes oxygen).
As Nomura teaches that the antibacterial, outermost layer of his multilayer coating does not interfere with the antireflective performance of the coating (par. 68) and as the instant claims do not require the recited coating to consist of a particular set of layers or that all layers participate in an antireflective function, the Nomura’s entire multilayer “top coating” qualifies as “an antireflective coating”, as instantly claimed.
The teachings of Nomura differ from the current invention in that he does not discuss the mean light reflection factor, Rv, demonstrated on the face (i.e. “main face”) of his article, which includes the above-discussed coating. However, as discussed above, Nomura’s optical article is a spectacle lens coating is an antireflective coating. Ding discloses that coatings must have a mean light reflection factor, Rv, of below 2.5 %, which is typically measured at an angle of incidence of 15 °, to qualify as an antireflective coating according to ISO 8980-4 and that, in general, the Rv on the front or rear faces of an ophthalmic lens is between 1.5 and 2.5 % (par. 15, 74). Ding also teaches as coated article that he describes as “very efficient” that demonstrates an Rv of lower than 2.0 % (par. 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Nomura’s coating and coated article such that it demonstrates an Rv of less than 2.5 % at the coated, “main” surface, including between 1.5 and 2.5 % and less than 2 % at an angle of incidence of 15 ° so that it properly qualifies as an “antireflective coating”, so that the coating and article provides a sufficient amount of antireflective performance, so that the coating and article demonstrate a “very efficient” antireflection property, and because such an Rv range is generally demonstrated with ophthalmic lenses, as taught by Ding.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, as discussed above, Nomura teaches a product with an antibacterial outermost layer.
The teachings of Nomura differ from the current invention in that the refractive index of his outermost, antibacterial layer at a particular temperature or wavelength is not disclosed. However, Nomura does teach making his multilayer top coating to be antireflective by alternating layers of high- and low-refractive indexes, wherein the high-refractive index layers have a refractive index of 1.90 to 2.6 at wavelengths of 500 to 550 nm and the low-refractive index layers have a refractive index of 1.35 to 1.8 at 500 to 550 nm (par. 31, 47, 48). As Nomura’s antibacterial, outermost layer (14) is placed atop a high-refractive index layer (13H) (Fig. 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the antibacterial layer should have a lower refractive index if it is to contribute to the antireflective property of the multilayer coating according to Nomura’s teachings. Nomura also teaches that his product is intended to be a spectacle lens (Abstract, par. 41), which is intended to be worn by a person and, therefore, intended to be used in conditions that are comfortable to a person. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Nomura’s antibacterial outermost coating layer to have a “low” refractive index, including a refractive index in the range or 1.35 to 1.8 at wavelengths of 500 to 550 nm, which occurs at comfortable living temperatures, such as 25 °C, so that the antibacterial coating can further contribute to the antireflective nature of the coating and article and be used by a person in normal living conditions that are comfortable to humans, such as at 25 °C. The instantly claimed refractive index range is encompassed and rendered obvious by Nomura. See MPEP 2144.05.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Do (CN 104073030 A) and Wu (CN 105404022A) et al. in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed April 27, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot in view of the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that the claims are distinguished over Nomura because Nomura does not teach a light reflection factor, Rv, as now claimed. However, it would have been obvious to configure Nomura’s optical article to demonstrate the recited Rv in view of Ding’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has further argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Nomura’s antibacterial layer is not part of an antireflective film because Nomura refers to the layers below the antibacterial layer as the antireflective film rather than the entire top coating and because Nomura teaches that the antibacterial layer has a thickness that allows it to not interfere with the antireflective properties of the multilayer top coating. These arguments are not persuasive, however, because although claim 1 does now recite that the top coating is an “antireflective coating”, it does not require each layer of the coating to participate in the interference properties and there are no recitations of the outermost layer being antireflective. To the contrary, the claim recites that the light reflection factor, Rv, of the optical article, as a whole, is in a specific range.
As discussed above, absent other modifications, Nomura’s outermost layer does not interfere with the antireflective performance of the coating (par. 68), and as the instant claims do not require the recited multilayer coating to consist of a particular set of layers or that all layers participate in an antireflective function, Nomura’s entire multilayer “top coating” qualifies as “an antireflective coating”, as instantly claimed. Analogously, an antireflective coating that included a thin, optically-inactive interlayer (e.g. a layer only present to enhance bonding between layers) between its high and low-refractive index layers would not seize to be an “antireflective coating” simply because it includes a layer that does not participate in the antireflective property. Furthermore, 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. an outermost layer that is antireflective or has other interference properties, or has a particular thickness) 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).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Do and Wu are moot in view of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights