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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/02/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A1, B2, C2, and D2 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has kindly indicated that claims 1-3, 5-18, 21, and 22 are generic or directed to the elected species. However, upon review the examiner has further identified claim 8 “the at least one dye is applied as a dye layer on at least one surface of the carrier layer” is directed to unelected species A3, drawn to the dye being in a separate dye layer adjacent to the carrier layer, claim 15 “the interference layer is provided on a second carrier layer, said second carrier layer being separate from the dyed carrier layer” is drawn to unelected species C1, drawn to the color filter comprising a second carrier layer, and claim 18 “the interference layer is formed on a transparent second carrier layer, preferably on a lacquer layer applied to a surface of the second carrier layer, the second carrier layer being provided as a clip-on lens attachable to the spectacles” is drawn to unelected species C1 and D2, drawn to the color filter comprising a second carrier layer and the second carrier layer forming a clip on lens. Therefore, claims 8, 15, and 18 are also considered withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-17, 21, and 22 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, 17, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 21-22, examiner suggests “[[A]] The colour filter”.
In claim 17, examiner suggests “The spectacles”.
In claim 10, examiner suggests “the stopband [[(S)]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spectrum of the absorption layer, specifically the absorption layer "substantially uniformly absorbing in the visible light range above at least 440 nm" as recited in claim 12 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the transmission function of the dyed carrier layer and the transmission function of the colour filter have the following relationship within the second wavelength range:
T
s
d
λ
<
1
-
V
(
λ
)
∙
(
1
-
T
λ
)
∙
n
, wherein
T
λ
: is the transmission function of the colour filter,
T
s
d
λ
: is the transmission function of the dyed carrier layer,
V
(
λ
)
: is the CIE photopic luminous efficiency function,
n
≥ 0.4” is not enabled.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The Nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (see In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case, claim 1 includes limitations of the transmission functions of the color filter and dyed carrier layer, a multiplying factor n, and the CIE photopic luminous efficiency function, with an expression of how these are all related to each other. However, this expression is claiming the benefits and function of the device, as well as the design motivation, without claiming any of the structural configuration required to achieve these benefits and functions. Further, there is no further guidance in the Specification. Page 20 points to a specific dye that can be used, however besides that no materials are given. The disclosure as a whole only points to the desired outcome of the filter’s function, but does not include any details or guidance regarding, the materials for the carrier layer or interference layer, thicknesses, or refractive indexes. Further, there are no numerical or working examples. Thus, the breadth of the limitations (Wands factor A) exceeds the nature of the invention (Wands factor B) in light of prior art (Wands factor C) beyond what one skilled in the art (Wands factor D) could predictably arrive at (Wands factor E). There is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the specification to support this limitation (Wands factors F & G). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to arrive at the claimed invention without undue experimentation (Wands factor H) using the instant application disclosure, see MPEP 2164.01(a).
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.
Claim1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 21-22 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.
Regarding independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims), it is unclear where the transition from preamble to body of the claim is. It is unclear if “having” in line 1 or “characterized in that” in line 6 or “comprising” in line 7 is the transitional phrase. Thus, the scope of the claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim is unclear. In accordance with the MPEP 2111.03 the determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case. See below for an interpretation.
Further regarding claim 1 (and its dependent claims) lines 1-6, particularly “A colour filter for modifying human colour vision, having a spectral transmission function …” has clarity issues. It is unclear if the spectral transmission function is (case 1) a required spectral transmission function of the colour filter or if (case 2) it is the spectral function of a human with color blindness deficiency. The first case would be interpreted as a required limitation of the colour filter and indicate that “having” in the first line would be transitional phrase. The second case would be interpreted as an intended use recited in the preamble and indicate that “characterized in that” in line 6 or “comprising” in the line 7 would be transitional phrase. Given the claim construction and in light of the specification, see figure 3, the examiner suggests “A colour filter comprising a spectral transmission function …” or “A colour filter for modifying human colour vision, the colour filter comprises
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the word preferably renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or not. The broader limitation followed by the narrower “preferred” limitation makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear since it is unclear whether the broader limitation is within the claimed scope or if the “preferred” limitation is required, see MPEP 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the examiner will assume the limitations following the word “preferably” are optional and therefore the limitations following “preferably” have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the dyed carrier layer comprises the at least one dye in its material” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear whether this limitation indicates the entire carrier layer contains dye in the material with which the carrier layer is made of (directed to non-elected species A2) or if this would be inherent to any dyed carrier layer since a dyed carrier layer eponymously must comprise dye.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes this limitation is inherent to any dyed carrier layer.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the dyed carrier layer is provided with an absorption layer, which absorption layer” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
First, the limitation “the dyed carrier layer is provided with an absorption layer” is unclear whether the absorption layer is part of the dyed carrier layer or if it is an additional layer adjacent to the dyed carrier layer, and part of the color filter. Based on Fig. 2a, which shows the absorption layer as another additional layer adjacent to the dyed carrier layer, the examiner assumes the absorption layer is an additional layer part of the color filter. Further, “which absorption layer” in the second line of the claim lacks antecedent basis.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the colour filter is provided with an absorption layer, wherein the absorption layer”.
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeder et al. (US 20140233105 A1), hereinafter Schmeder.
Regarding independent claim 1, Schmeder discloses a colour filter for modifying human colour vision, having a spectral transmission function in the visible light range (Fig. 31; ¶0208, ¶0375) wherein the average transmission in a first wavelength range of at least 20 nm width below 530 nm (440 nm – 460 nm; Figs. 31, 61B) is at least twice the average transmission in a second wavelength range between 530 and 580 nm (using the values of f(λ) column of Fig. 61B since ¶0123 states f(λ) is the spectral transmittance of the filter, first range: ~45%, second range: ~21%; Figs. 31, 61B), and the average transmission in a third wavelength range of least 20 nm width above 580 nm (620 nm – 640 nm; Figs. 31. 61B) is at least twice the average transmission in the second wavelength range (using f(λ) values from Fig. 61B, third range: ~45%, second range: 22%; Figs. 31, 61B), characterized in that it comprises an interference layer (interference filter; ¶0137-¶0140) and a carrier layer (absorptive filters; ¶0137-¶0140) dyed with at least one dye (¶0153), the transmission function of the dyed carrier layer and the transmission function of the colour filter have the following relationship within the second wavelength range:
T
s
d
λ
<
1
-
V
(
λ
)
∙
(
1
-
T
λ
)
∙
n
, wherein
T
λ
: is the transmission function of the colour filter,
T
s
d
λ
: is the transmission function of the dyed carrier layer,
V
(
λ
)
: is the CIE photopic luminous efficiency function,
n
≥ 0.4 (although these numbers and functions are not given in Schmeder, this limitation is inherent given Fig. 31 and the structure and function of the color filter; also see 112(a) rejection above).
In the alternative, if Schmeder’s invention does not inherently have the materials/composition with the physical properties resulting in the above expression, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder discloses a color filter comprising an interference layer and a dyed carrier layer all the required relationships of the transmission between the first, second, and third wavelength ranges, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the n value and the transmission functions of the dyed carrier layer and the color filter to satisfy the above expression for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Schmeder does not disclose a minimum transmission of the interference layer between 540 nm and 570 nm is at least 15%. However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder discloses a color filter comprising an interference layer and a dyed carrier layer all the required relationships of the transmission between the first, second, and third wavelength ranges, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the minimum transmission of the interference layer between 540 nm and 570 nm be at least 15% for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the n value and the transmissions of the color filter and the dyed carrier layer to satisfy the above expression and for the minimum transmission of the interference layer between 540 nm and 570 nm to be at least 15% for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004) and 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.
Regarding claim 2, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses that n ≥ 0.5 (although these numbers and functions are not given in Schmeder, this limitation is inherent given Fig. 31 and the structure and function of the color filter; also see 112(a) rejection above).
In the alternative, if Schmeder’s invention does not inherently have the materials/composition with the physical properties resulting in n ≥ 0.5, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder discloses a color filter comprising an interference layer and a dyed carrier layer all the required relationships of the transmission between the first, second, and third wavelength ranges, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the n value satisfy n ≥ 0.5 for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for n ≥ 0.5 for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004) and 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.
Regarding claim 3, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder does not disclose the minimum transmission of the interference layer between 530 nm to 580 nm is above 20%, preferably above 40%, more preferably above 60%.
However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder discloses a color filter comprising an interference layer and a dyed carrier layer all the required relationships of the transmission between the first, second, and third wavelength ranges, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the minimum transmission of the interference layer between 530 nm and 580 nm be above 20%, 40%, or 60% for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the minimum transmission of the interference layer between 530 nm to 580 nm to be above 20%, 40%, or 60% for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004) and 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.
Regarding claim 7, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the dyed carrier layer comprises the at least one dye in its material (¶0153).
Regarding claim 9, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the spectral transmission function of the colour filter comprises at least two passbands and a stopband separating them, the stopband at least partially overlapping the second wavelength range in an overlapping range (Fig. 31; ¶0074), and the dyed carrier layer and the interference layer jointly provide the at least two passbands and the stopband (¶0137-¶0140).
Regarding claim 10, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 9, as set forth above. Schmeder does not disclose the average transmission of the stopband (S) within the overlapping range is less than 20% over at least 20 nm, preferably less than 10%.
However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder discloses all the claimed elements of a color filter, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the average transmission of the stopband (S) within the overlapping range is less than 20% or less than 10% over at least 20 nm for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the average transmission of the stopband (S) within the overlapping range to be less than 20% or less than 10% over at least 20 nm for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004) and 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.
Regarding claim 11, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 9, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the dyed carrier layer and the interference layer jointly provide at least three passbands and two stopbands separating the neighbouring passbands (Fig. 31; ¶0074, ¶0137-¶0140).
Regarding claim 13, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses at least one functional layer (¶0160) selected from the group consisting of scratch resistant layer, anti-reflection layer (¶0160), vapour repellent layer, fingerprint repellent layer, dirt repellent layer and UV filter layer.
Regarding claim 14, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the interference layer is provided on the dyed carrier layer (implicit from ¶0112).
Regarding claim 16, Schmeder discloses spectacles for modifying human colour vision (¶0004), characterized in that they comprise a colour filter according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeder (US 20140233105 A1) in view of Ace (US 20190219834 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder does not disclose the carrier layer is dyed with at least one broad absorption band dye having a full-width at half maximum greater than 40 nm and smaller than 150 nm around its absorption peak.
However, Ace teaches a similar color filter comprising a dyed carrier layer (¶0016), wherein the carrier layer is dyed with at least one broad absorption band dye (¶0017, ¶0103) having a full-width at half maximum greater than 40 nm (Fig. 18; ¶0103) around its absorption peak.
Ace does not teach the at least one broad absorption band dye has a full-width at half maximum smaller than 150 nm around its absorption peak. However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Schmeder in view of Ace discloses all the claimed elements of the color filter, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the FWHM of the broad absorption dye be less than 150 nm for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the carrier layer to be dyed with a broad absorption band dye having a FWHM between 40 nm and 150 nm for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004 of Schmeder) and 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.
Regarding claim 6, Schmeder in view of Ace discloses the colour filter according to claim 5, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the carrier layer is dyed with at least two dyes (¶0153). Schmeder does not disclose at least one of which is the at least one broad absorption band dye.
However, Ace teaches the carrier layer is dyed with at least two dyes, at least one of which is the at least one broad absorption band dye (¶0017, ¶0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the carrier layer to be dyed with at least two dyes, at least one of which is the broad absorption band dye, for the purpose of achieving the proper color profile to provide enhancement and/or regulation to the appearance of color with respect to human color perception (¶0004 of Schmeder).
Claim(s) 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeder (US 20140233105 A1) in view of Sugihara et al. (US 20090239048 A1), hereinafter Sugihara.
Regarding claim 12, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder does not disclose the dyed carrier layer is provided with an absorption layer, which absorption layer is substantially uniformly absorbing in the visible light range above at least 440 nm.
However, Sugihara teaches an optical article (Fig. 1) for spectacles (¶0002) comprising an absorption layer (11; Fig. 1) which is substantially uniformly absorbing in the visible light range about at least 440 nm (UV absorbent added to the material of the layer; ¶0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the color filter to include an absorption layer for the purpose of blocking UV light.
Regarding claim 17, Schmeder discloses the spectacles according to claim 16, as set forth above. Schmeder further discloses the dyed carrier layer is ground as a spectacle lens (¶0004) and the interference layer is provided on the dyed carrier layer (implicit from ¶0112). Schmeder does not disclose the interference layer is provided preferably on a lacquer layer applied to a surface of the dyed carrier layer.
However, Sugihara teaches an optical article (Fig. 1) for spectacles (¶0002) comprising a lacquer layer (hard coat layer 13; Fig. 1; ¶0024) provided between two layers.
There are only a few possibilities as to where to include the lacquer layer of Sugihara in the color filter of Schmeder – on the dyed carrier layer, between the dyed carrier layer and the interference layer or on the interference layer. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the color filter to include a lacquer layer between the dyed carrier layer and the interference layer for the purpose of imparting scratch resistance and abrasion resistance to the dyed carrier layer (¶0006 of Sugihara).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeder (US 20140233105 A1) in view of Duha et al. (US 20040075810 A1), hereinafter Duha.
Regarding claim 21, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1, as set forth above. Schmeder does not disclose the carrier layer has at least one dye diffused into both sides of the carrier layer (although it is suggested by ¶0153).
However, Duha teaches a similar color filter comprising a carrier layer (lens; ¶0087) that is dyed (¶0087), wherein the carrier layer (lens) has the dye diffused into the surface of the carrier layer (lens) (¶0087). It is further implicit that the dye would be diffused into both sides because the carrier layer has two surfaces.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the dye to be diffused into the carrier layer for the purpose of having a dyed carrier layer.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeder (US 20140233105 A1) in view of Maggi (US 20170255028 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Schmeder discloses the colour filter according to claim 1. Schmeder does not disclose the color filter is configured as a clip-on lens.
However, Maggi teaches a filter for spectacles, wherein the filter is configured as a clip-on lens (Fig. 12; ¶0037).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the color filter to be configured as a clip-on lens for the purpose of being able to use the color filter with standard eyeglasses (¶0037 of Maggi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wenzel et al. “Improving Colour Vision.” 2014, www.colorlitelens.com/publication.html discloses a similar color filter in the graph on page 5 of the attached document showing the transmission relationships of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 6th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872