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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 1/27/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe (US20110255051A1, of record in the IDS dated 03/15/2023) in view of Brown (US20180067337A1).
With respect to Claim 1, McCabe discloses a light filtering element (Fig. 1B-- element 102, lens has a chroma-enhancing optical filter; see also: [0107]), comprising:
at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]), including
a first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]), the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) including a first narrowband dye peak absorbance wavelength with a first narrowband dye bandwidth and a first narrowband absorbance area ratio (See annotated Fig. 21 of McCabe-- first narrowband dye), said first narrowband dye absorbance area ratio being defined as a quotient of a residual area of the first narrowband dye by a total area of the first narrowband dye, the residual area and the total area of the first narrowband dye being calculated over a range of wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm (Fig. 21-- first narrowband dye contains wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm and thus a quotient of a residual area of the first narrowband dye by a total area of the first narrowband dye may be calculated); and
a first broadband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]), the first broadband dye including a first broadband dye peak
absorbance wavelength with a first broadband dye bandwidth and a first broadband dye absorbance area ratio (See annotated Fig. 21 of McCabe-- first broadband dye), said first broadband dye absorbance area ratio being defined as the quotient of a residual area of the first broadband dye by a total area of the first broadband dye, the residual area and the total area of the first broadband dye being calculated over a range of wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm (Fig. 21-- first broadband dye contains wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm and thus a quotient of a residual area of the first broadband dye by a total area of the first broadband dye), wherein
the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a photochromic dye or a fixed tint dye ([0145]: lens 102 may incorporate organic dyes), and
the first broadband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a photochromic dye or a fixed tint dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]), wherein the light filtering element is a pre-formed photochromic color enhancing wafer ([0189]: element 202 may include chroma enhancement coating).
McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the light filtering element has a thickness higher than 0.5 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to increase the thickness of the chroma enhancement coating, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. 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).
However, McCabe does not disclose a light filtering element provided that at least one of the first narrowband dye and the first broadband dye is a photochromic dye. McCabe and Brown are related as both pertaining to the field of light filtering elements. Brown discloses one of the first narrowband dye ([0057]: the lens may perform narrow band filtering) and the first broadband dye is a photochromic dye ([0010]: the photochromic lens contains photochromic dyes which transform the color of the lens when exposed to specific wavelength bands of light). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light filtering element with the photochromic dye of Brown in order to make lenses darken when used outside in sunlight and clear or clearer when used indoors (Brown, [0010]).
With respect to Claim 2, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the first narrowband dye peak absorbance wavelength is approximately 498nm,
the first narrowband dye bandwidth is less than 70 nm, and
the first narrowband dye absorbance area ratio is less than or equal to approximately 0.50 (See Fig. 21—peak absorbance approx. 498nm; bandwidth approx. 16nm; see [0008]: attenuation factor is approx. greater than or equal to 0.8).
However, McCabe does not explicitly disclose that the first narrowband absorbance area ratio is less than or equal to approximately 0.50.
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for the first narrowband absorbance area ratio is less than or equal to approximately 0.50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbance area ratio, 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).
With respect to Claim 3, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) includes a second narrowband dye (See annotated Fig. 21 of McCabe-- second narrowband dye), the second narrowband dye including a second narrowband dye peak absorbance wavelength with a second narrowband dye bandwidth and a second narrowband dye absorbance area ratio (See annotated Fig. 21 of McCabe-- first narrowband dye), said second narrowband dye absorbance area ratio being defined, as a quotient of a residual area of the second narrowband dye by a total area of the second narrowband dye, the residual area and the total area of the second narrowband dye being calculated over a range of wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm (Fig. 21-- second narrowband dye contains wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm and thus a quotient of a residual area of the second narrowband dye by a total area of the first broadband dye).
With respect to Claim 4, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 3, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the second narrowband dye peak absorbance wavelength is approximately 585 nm,
the second narrowband dye bandwidth is less than 70 nm,
and second narrowband dye absorbance area ratio is less than or equal to
approximately 0.50 (See Fig. 21—peak absorbance approx. 575nm; bandwidth approx. 22nm; see [0008]: attenuation factor is approx. greater than or equal to 0.8).
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for the first narrowband absorbance area ratio is less than or equal to approximately 0.50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbance area ratio, 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).
With respect to Claim 5, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe discloses further comprising a lens (Fig. 1B-- element 102, lens; see also: [0108]) integrated (Fig. 1B—element 202 is an integral part of the lens element 102) with the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]).
With respect to Claim 6, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 5, and McCabe further discloses wherein the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) and the lens (Fig. 1B-- element 102, lens; see also: [0108]) are attached to one another via an adhesive ([0110]: the optical filter may be integrated into a combination of lens coating element 202 and an adhesive layer).
With respect to Claim 7, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 5, and McCabe further discloses wherein the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) and the lens (Fig. 1B-- element 102, lens; see also: [0108]) are attached to one another via injection molding ([0111]: the optical filter may be integrated into elements 204 or 208 via injection molding).
With respect to Claim 8, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe further discloses wherein
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes
configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) or the first broadband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a photochromic dye ([0108]: lens 102 may include a photochromic layer),
the photochromic dye ([0108]: lens 102 may include a photochromic layer) is configured to adjust a transmission of the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) between at least two transmission states (See 112(b) interpretation above) in response to a change in detected luminance ([0108]: the lens contains a photochromic layer),
a first transmission state of the at least two transmission states (See 112(b) interpretation above) includes a first
transmission value,
a second transmission state of the at least two transmission states (See 112(b) interpretation above) includes a
second transmission value, the second transmission value being larger than the first transmission value,
in response to a high detected luminance, the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) adjusts to the first transmission state of the at least two transmission states ([0005], [0112]: sunglasses may have a film that decreases the transmittance of a lens in bright light conditions), said high detected luminance corresponding to a sunny environment having a luminance value of 20,000 Lux, and
in response to a low detected luminance, the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) adjusts to the second transmission state of the at least two transmission states ([0005], [0112]: sunglasses may have a film that increases the transmittance of a lens in indoor light conditions) ([0108]: the lens element includes a photochromic layer which would inherently include two transmission states for different luminance values), said low detected luminance corresponding to a shaded environment having a luminance value of 100 Lux.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for said high detected luminance corresponding to a sunny environment having a luminance value of 20,000 Lux and said low detected luminance corresponding to a shaded environment having a luminance value of 100 Lux. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission states to operate in different lighting conditions, 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).
With respect to Claim 9, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the first transmission value of the first transmission state of the at least two
transmission states is in the range of 8% to 18%.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for first transmission value is in the range of 8% to 18%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184]).
With respect to Claim 10, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe further discloses wherein
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes
configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a fixed tint dye, the second transmission value of the second transmission state of the at least two transmission states (See 112(b) interpretation above) is in the range of 20% to 65%, or
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a photochromic dye, the second transmission value of the second transmission state of the at least two transmission states is in the range of 20% to 90%.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for second transmission value is in the range of 20% to 65%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184]).
With respect to Claim 11, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) includes a first narrowband dye peak transmission.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for and a ratio of the first
narrowband dye peak transmission to the first transmission value is in the range of 0.0 to 0.6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184]).
With respect to Claim 12, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) includes a first narrowband dye peak transmission,
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes
configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of
spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a fixed tint dye, a ratio of the first
narrowband peak transmission to the second transmission value is in the
range of 0.0 to 0.6, or
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes
configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of
spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a photochromic dye ([0108]: lens 102 may include a photochromic layer).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for and a ratio of
the first narrowband dye peak transmission to the second transmission value is in the range of 0.5 to 1.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184]).
With respect to Claim 13, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) includes a first layer (Fig. 1B-- element 202, lens coating; See also: [0108]) and a second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) ,
the first layer (Fig. 1B-- element 202, lens coating; See also: [0108]) of the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) includes the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]),
the second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) of the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]) includes the first broadband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]),
the second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) is integrated (See Fig. 1B—element 202 is disposed on 204) with the first layer (Fig. 1B-- element 202, lens coating; See also: [0108]) , and
when the first broadband dye is a photochromic dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]), the second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) is
configured to adjust the transmission of the second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) between the at least two transmission states (See 112(b) interpretation above).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
With respect to Claim 14, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 13, and McCabe further discloses wherein
the second layer (Fig. 1B-- element 204, lens body may in include functional layer; See also: [0108]) is a coating and/or a thermoplastic (See [0188]: the lens 102 may be made of a variety of materials including polycarbonates).
With respect to Claim 15, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 1, and McCabe discloses wherein
further comprising a lens (Fig. 1B-- element 102, lens; see also: [0108]) integrated (Fig. 1B—element 202 is an integral part of the lens element 102) with the at least one layer (Fig. 1B-- elements 202 and 204, lens coating and body may incorporate the optical filter: see also: [0110]).
With respect to Claim 16, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe discloses wherein
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes
configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a fixed tint dye ([0145]: lens 102 may incorporate organic dyes), the second transmission value of the second transmission state of the at least two transmission states is in the range of 20% to 65%, and
when the first narrowband dye is a photochromic dye, the second transmission value of the second transmission state of the at least two transmission states is in the range of 20% to 90% (Due to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, it is unclear if the limitation is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have an active transmission state and an inactivated transmission state. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for second transmission value is in the range of 20% to 65%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184])
With respect to Claim 17, McCabe and Brown disclose the light filtering element of claim 8, and McCabe discloses
the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) includes a first narrowband dye peak transmission,
when the first narrowband dye (Fig. 1B-- element 102 may contain dyes configured to produce an absorbance peak in one of the plurality of spectral bands; see also: [0008]) is a fixed tint dye ([0145]: lens 102 may incorporate organic dyes) and
when the first narrowband dye is a photochromic dye a ratio of the first narrowband dye peak transmission to the second transmission value is in the range of 0.5 to 1.2 (Due to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, it is unclear if the limitation is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required).
Thus, McCabe discloses the claimed invention except for and a ratio of the first
narrowband dye peak transmission to the first transmission value is in the range of 0.0 to 0.6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of the lens, 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). In the current instance, transmission is an art recognized results effective variable in that varying the transmission of the lens may allow for more natural contrast and better focus as taught by McCabe (McCabe, [0184]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872