Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted on August 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 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.
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.
Claim 1-2, 5-7, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (JP 2006184849 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Miyamoto (US 2015/0234209), further in view of Wu (CN210534467U, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneyama discloses a spectacle lens comprising ([0055], “the antireflection laminate of the present invention or the optical functional filter of the present invention is provided on an optical article such as window glass, eyeglasses, or goggles”), in this order:
a lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 2);
an inorganic layer (layers 11-12);
a metal-containing layer (13); and
a water-repellent layer (7),
wherein the metal-containing layer contains:
silver ([0032], “an alloy containing silver, and a mixture containing silver are preferred”); and
one or more metals selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, palladium, mercury, cadmium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, and titanium ([0033], “metal elements to be contained in silver include gold”), and
wherein at least part of the metal contained in the metal-containing layer is in a form of a single metal or a metal alloy ([0032], “an alloy containing silver, and a mixture containing silver are preferred”).
Yoneyama does not specifically disclose wherein the water-repellent layer is a fluorine-based organic layer comprising m-xylene hexafluoride.
However Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the water-repellent layer (Fig. 1, element 12) is a fluorine-based organic layer ([0069], “a water-and-oil repellent film 12 including a fluorine-substituted alkyl group-containing organosilicon compound”) comprising m-xylene hexafluoride ([0124], “a fluorine-substituted alkyl group-containing organosilicon compound is dissolved in an organic solvent”, [0125], “As the organic solvent … m-xylene hexafluoride, or the like is used”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama with the wherein the water-repellent layer is a fluorine-based organic layer comprising m-xylene hexafluoride as taught by Miyamoto, for the purpose of improving abrasion resistance ([0070]).
Modified Yoneyama does not specifically disclose wherein the water-repellent layer is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal- containing layer.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the water-repellent layer (Fig. 1, element 50) is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal-containing layer ([0040], “The antibacterial layer 70 is a nano-silver film layer”, [0041], “waterproof layer 50 is vacuum-deposited onto the seawater erosion resistant layer 42 and the antibacterial layer 70”, as shown in Fig. 1, 50 is directly layered on metal layer 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Miyamoto with the wherein the water-repellent layer is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal- containing layer as taught by Wu, for the purpose of preventing adhesion of water and improve visual effects of the lens ([0041]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the inorganic layer is a multilayer film of two or more inorganic layers ([0057], “10 atomic % of cerium in indium was deposited on the primer layer 4 by a sputtering method to form a high refractive index transparent thin-film layer 11 … Nichrome was deposited on the high-refractive-index transparent thin-film layer 11 by sputtering to form a protective layer 12”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer is a metal-containing inorganic layer ([0032], “an alloy containing silver”, silver alloy is inorganic).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer (13) is a vapor-deposited film of a vapor deposition material, and the vapor deposition material is particles of the metal ([0034], “a vapor deposition method”).
Regarding claim 7, Y modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and oneyama further discloses spectacles comprising the spectacle lens ([0073], “The antireflection laminate of the present invention is useful as a filter to be provided in optical display devices such as … spectacles, and goggles”).
Regarding claim 13, Yoneyama discloses spectacles ([0073], “The antireflection laminate of the present invention is useful as a filter to be provided in optical display devices such as … spectacles, and goggles”) comprising:
a frame ([0073], “spectacles”, spectacles are defined as a pair of lenses set in a frame); and
a spectacle lens ([0073], “spectacles”, spectacles are defined as a pair of lenses set in a frame) comprising:
wherein the spectacle lens comprises, in this order:
a lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 2);
an inorganic layer (layers 11-12);
a metal-containing layer (13); and
a water-repellent layer (7),
wherein the metal-containing layer contains:
silver ([0032], “an alloy containing silver, and a mixture containing silver are preferred”); and
one or more metals selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, palladium, mercury, cadmium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, and titanium ([0033], “metal elements to be contained in silver include gold”), and
wherein at least part of the metal contained in the metal-containing layer is in a form of a single metal or a metal alloy ([0032], “an alloy containing silver, and a mixture containing silver are preferred”).
Yoneyama does not specifically disclose wherein the water-repellent layer is a fluorine-based organic layer comprising m-xylene hexafluoride.
However Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the water-repellent layer (Fig. 1, element 12) is a fluorine-based organic layer ([0069], “a water-and-oil repellent film 12 including a fluorine-substituted alkyl group-containing organosilicon compound”) comprising m-xylene hexafluoride ([0124], “a fluorine-substituted alkyl group-containing organosilicon compound is dissolved in an organic solvent”, [0125], “As the organic solvent … m-xylene hexafluoride, or the like is used”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama with the wherein the water-repellent layer is a fluorine-based organic layer comprising m-xylene hexafluoride as taught by Miyamoto, for the purpose of improving abrasion resistance ([0070]).
Modified Yoneyama does not specifically disclose wherein the water-repellent layer is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal- containing layer.
However Wu, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the water-repellent layer (Fig. 1, element 50) is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal-containing layer ([0040], “The antibacterial layer 70 is a nano-silver film layer”, [0041], “waterproof layer 50 is vacuum-deposited onto the seawater erosion resistant layer 42 and the antibacterial layer 70”, as shown in Fig. 1, 50 is directly layered on metal layer 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Miyamoto with the wherein the water-repellent layer is a layer directly layered on a surface of the metal- containing layer as taught by Wu, for the purpose of preventing adhesion of water and improve visual effects of the lens ([0041]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the inorganic layer is a multilayer film of two or more inorganic layers ([0057], “10 atomic % of cerium in indium was deposited on the primer layer 4 by a sputtering method to form a high refractive index transparent thin-film layer 11 … Nichrome was deposited on the high-refractive-index transparent thin-film layer 11 by sputtering to form a protective layer 12”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer is a metal-containing inorganic layer ([0032], “an alloy containing silver”, silver alloy is inorganic).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer is a vapor-deposited film of a vapor deposition material, and the vapor deposition material is particles of the metal ([0034], “a vapor deposition method”).
Claims 4, 9-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (JP 2006184849 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Miyamoto (US 2015/0234209), further in view of Wu (CN210534467U, as evidenced by the machine translation) and Umeda (US 2020/0209433).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less.
However Umeda, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the metal-containing layer (Fig. 1, element 14, [0048], “a silver-containing metal layer 14 containing silver (Ag)”) has a film thickness of 5 nm or less ([0207], “film thickness of the silver film was 2 nm”, as shown in Table 3, the metal layer containing silver has a thickness of 2nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Miyamoto further in view of Wu with the wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less as taught by Umeda, for the purpose of forming an ultrathin silver film while suppressing crystal grain growth ([0085]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 2 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less.
However Umeda, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the metal-containing layer (Fig. 1, element 14, [0048], “a silver-containing metal layer 14 containing silver (Ag)”) has a film thickness of 5 nm or less ([0207], “film thickness of the silver film was 2 nm”, as shown in Table 3, the metal layer containing silver has a thickness of 2nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Wu with the wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less as taught by Umeda, for the purpose of forming an ultrathin silver film while suppressing crystal grain growth ([0085]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer is a metal-containing inorganic layer ([0032], “an alloy containing silver”, silver alloy is inorganic).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer (13) is a vapor-deposited film of a vapor deposition material, and the vapor deposition material is particles of the metal ([0034], “a vapor deposition method”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 11 rejection above and Yoneyama further discloses Spectacles comprising the spectacle lens ([0073], “The antireflection laminate of the present invention is useful as a filter to be provided in optical display devices such as … spectacles, and goggles”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less.
However Umeda, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the metal-containing layer (Fig. 1, element 14, [0048], “a silver-containing metal layer 14 containing silver (Ag)”) has a film thickness of 5 nm or less ([0207], “film thickness of the silver film was 2 nm”, as shown in Table 3, the metal layer containing silver has a thickness of 2nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Miyamoto further in view of Wu with the wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less as taught by Umeda, for the purpose of forming an ultrathin silver film while suppressing crystal grain growth ([0085]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yoneyama teaches as is set forth in claim 14 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less.
However Umeda, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a laminated film, teaches wherein the metal-containing layer (Fig. 1, element 14, [0048], “a silver-containing metal layer 14 containing silver (Ag)”) has a film thickness of 5 nm or less ([0207], “film thickness of the silver film was 2 nm”, as shown in Table 3, the metal layer containing silver has a thickness of 2nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Yoneyama in view of Miyamoto further in view of Wu with the wherein the metal-containing layer has a film thickness of 5 nm or less as taught by Umeda, for the purpose of forming an ultrathin silver film while suppressing crystal grain growth ([0085]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights