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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application, claims 11-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to the claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 14-18, filed on 15 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 15 May 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 15 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that the spacer of AllSO would not allow the formation of a first combination, a second combination, and/or the single layer. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in the instant case, the embodiment of figure 1G (which does not include said "spacer") of AllSO was relied upon wherein the the plastic lens (i.e., the combination of the substrate layers (ref. #24 and #26) along with the film (ref. #16)) is considered equivalent to the claimed "intermediate layer" of the claimed optical lens.
Applicants also argue that Paulson only teaches that a combination of the second outer layer, the first outer layer, and the intermediate layer does NOT teach the first outer layer, the second outer layer or both provide a stiff backing to the intermediate layer because the first outer layer (ref. #104C). The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the intermediate layer (ref. #104B) which was disclosed as providing a stiff backing, was considered equivalent to the claimed first and second "protective layer", and that said second outer layer (ref. #104D) was considered equivalent to the claimed first and second "scratch-resistant layer".
Applicants go on to argue that the coatings of Paulson are unsuitable for coating the intermediate layer of the optical lens disclosed by AllSO, and that such a combination would not teach the claimed first combination, second combination, or single layer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In that AllSO disclose that both the surfaces of the intermediate layer of the optical lens can be further coated with protective functional coatings ([0196], [0198], [0201]-[0202] of AllSO). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the plurality of layers (ref. #104A, #104B, #104C, and #104D) of Paulson as the coating layer of the optical lends provided by AllSO in order to have --a first protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the first scratch-resistant layer on a first outer surface of the first protective layer for forming a first reinforced protective layer thereon; a second protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the second scratch-resistant layer on a second outer surface of the second protective layer for forming a second reinforced protective layer thereon; the at least one containing space layer formed between a first inner surface of the first protective layer and a second inner surface of the second protective layer; and wherein the first scratch-resistant layer and the first protective layer are provided to commonly protect a first side of the containing space layer, while the second scratch-resistant layer and the second protective layer are provided to commonly protect a second side of the containing space layer; with a first combination of the first protective layer, the intermediate layer and the second protective layer to thereby form a double-sided high reinforcement structure; and with a second combination of the first scratch-resistant layer, the first protective layer, the intermediate layer, the second protective layer and the second scratch-resistant layer to thereby form a composite double-sided high scratch-resistant optical lens device containing said double-sided high reinforcement structure therein--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the plurality of layers (ref. #104A, #104B, #104C, and #104D) of Paulson as the coating layer of the optical lends provided by AllSO, from the stand-point of having a number of layers and the order of each in relation to the others that results in a very satisfactory hardness and optical characteristics for the overall structure ([0011] and [0023] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the plurality of layers of Paulson would be incorporated as the hard coating layer disposed on both sides of the plastic lends of AllSO, wherein the intermediate layer (ref. #104B) is considered equivalent to the claimed first protective layer and second protective layer, and wherein the second outer layer (ref. #104D) is considered equivalent to the claimed first scratch-resistant layer and second scratch-resistant layer.) Furthermore, in that all the layers are connected to one another they are considered together to constitute the "single layer" as claimed (as explained below in the maintained rejections).
Therefore, in light of the applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections are still valid.
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 1-10 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Regards to claims 1-10: Claim 1 recites --a double-sided high reinforcement structure-- in line 14. The instant specification as filed is silent with respect to "a double-sided high reinforcement structure". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 2 to 3. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
With Regards to Claim 4: Claim 4 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 3 to 4. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 2 to 3. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 4 to 5. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
With Regards to Claim 7: Claim 7 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 3 to 4. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 3 recites the limitation --to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 5 to 6. The instant specification as filed is silent with regards to "an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness". As such, the claim is deemed to fail the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --a first combination of the first protective layer, the intermediate layer and the second protective layer to thereby form a double-sided high reinforcement structure-- in lines 13 to 14. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no basis by which one could ascertain what constitutes "high reinforcement"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said first protective layer, said intermediate layer, and said second protective layer, then the limitation will be considered taught.
Claims 2-10, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation --a second combination of the first scratch-resistant layer, the first protective layer, the intermediate layer, the second protective layer and the second scratch-resistant layer to thereby form a composite double-sided high scratch-resistant optical lens device-- in lines 13 to 14. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no basis by which one could ascertain what constitutes "high reinforcement"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said first scratch-resistant layer, first protective layer, said intermediate layer, said second protective layer, and said second scratch-resistant layer, then the limitation will be considered taught.
Claims 2-10, which depend upon claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 2 to 3. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
With Regards to Claim 4: Claim 4 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in line 4. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in line 3. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 4 to 5. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
With Regards to Claim 7: Claim 7 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 3 to 4. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
With Regards to Claim 8: Claim 8 recites --a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness-- in lines 5 to 6. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no comparative by which one could ascertain what constitutes "reduced thickness"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that so long as a structure possesses said claimed "single layer", then the limitation will be considered taught.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AllSO (US 2018/0050507 A1) in view of Paulson (US 2014/0362444 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: AllSO discloses a plastic lens in which the substrate layers (ref. #24 and #26) are laminated over both sies of the film (ref. #16) (figure 1G and [0150] of AllSO). AllSO also discloses that one or both sides of the plastic lens can be coated by a coating layer, wherein the coating layer includes a primer layer, a hard coat layer, an antireflection film layer, an antifog coat layer, an antifouling layer, and a water repellent layer that can be used alone or as a multi-layered coating layer of the plurality of coating layers, and that the same or different coating layers can be applied to both sides ([0196], [0198], and [0201]-[0203] of AllSO). Specifically, AllSO provides for --an optical lens comprising: a first scratch-resistant layer having a function of a surface-scratch resistance; a second scratch-resistant layer having a function of a surface-scratch resistance; at least one space layer formed between a first inner surface and a second inner surface; and at least one intermediate layer provided in the containing space layer for protection; wherein the first scratch-resistant layer is provided to protect a first side of the containing space layer, while the second scratch-resistant layer is provided to protect a second side of the containing space layer--. (In the instant case, the plastic lens (i.e., the substrate layers (ref. #24 and #26) along with the film (ref. #16)) is considered equivalent to the claimed "intermediate layer".)
AllSO fails to disclose --a first protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the first scratch-resistant layer on a first outer surface of the first protective layer for forming a first reinforced protective layer thereon; a second protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the second scratch-resistant layer on a second outer surface of the second protective layer for forming a second reinforced protective layer thereon; the at least one containing space layer formed between a first inner surface of the first protective layer and a second inner surface of the second protective layer; and wherein the first scratch-resistant layer and the first protective layer are provided to commonly protect a first side of the containing space layer, while the second scratch-resistant layer and the second protective layer are provided to commonly protect a second side of the containing space layer--.
Paulson discloses articles exhibiting high hardness and including anti-reflective coatings on substrates, specifically, an article (ref. #100A) having a substrate (ref. #102), an optional inner layer (ref. #104A) substantially covering the substrate, an intermediate layer (ref. #104B) substantially covering the inner layer, a first outer layer (ref. #104C) substantially covering the intermediate layer, and a second outer layer (ref. #104D) substantially covering the first outer layer (figure 5A, [0002], and [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). Paulson also discloses that the second outer layer (ref. #104D) is employed to provide some mechanical protection (e.g., against scratching) to the first outer layer (ref. #104C), and that the intermediate layer (ref. #104B) provides a stiff backing to the first outer layer (ref. #104C) ([0044] of Paulson). (In the instant case, said intermediate layer has the function of structural reinforcement, in that is provides a stiff backing for the overlying layers; wherein said intermediate layer would be considered equivalent to the claimed first and second protective layers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the plurality of layers (ref. #104A, #104B, #104C, and #104D) of Paulson as the coating layer of the optical lends provided by AllSO in order to have -a first protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the first scratch-resistant layer on a first outer surface of the first protective layer for forming a first reinforced protective layer thereon; a second protective layer having a function of structural reinforcement; providing the second scratch-resistant layer on a second outer surface of the second protective layer for forming a second reinforced protective layer thereon; the at least one containing space layer formed between a first inner surface of the first protective layer and a second inner surface of the second protective layer; and wherein the first scratch-resistant layer and the first protective layer are provided to commonly protect a first side of the containing space layer, while the second scratch-resistant layer and the second protective layer are provided to commonly protect a second side of the containing space layer; with a first combination of the first protective layer, the intermediate layer and the second protective layer to thereby form a double-sided high reinforcement structure; and with a second combination of the first scratch-resistant layer, the first protective layer, the intermediate layer, the second protective layer and the second scratch-resistant layer to thereby form a composite double-sided high scratch-resistant optical lens device containing said double-sided high reinforcement structure therein--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the plurality of layers (ref. #104A, #104B, #104C, and #104D) of Paulson as the coating layer of the optical lends provided by AllSO, from the stand-point of having a number of layers and the order of each in relation to the others that results in a very satisfactory hardness and optical characteristics for the overall structure ([0011] and [0023] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the plurality of layers of Paulson would be incorporated as the hard coating layer disposed on both sides of the plastic lends of AllSO, wherein the intermediate layer (ref. #104B) is considered equivalent to the claimed first protective layer and second protective layer, and wherein the second outer layer (ref. #104D) is considered equivalent to the claimed first scratch-resistant layer and second scratch-resistant layer.)
Regarding Claim 3: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the first inner surface of the first protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the first inner surface of the first protective layer.)
Regarding Claim 4: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the first inner surface of the first protective layer while the first scratch-resistant layer is integrated with the first outer surface of first protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the first inner surface of the first protective layer, and that the first scratch-resistant layer is connected to the first outer surface of the first protective layer.)
Regarding Claim 5: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the second inner surface of the second protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the second inner surface of the second protective layer.)
Regarding Claim 6: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the second inner surface of the second protective layer while the second scratch-resistant layer is integrated with the second outer surface of the second protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the second inner surface of the second protective layer, and that the second scratch-resistant layer is connected with the second outer surface of the second protective layer.)
Regarding Claim 7: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the first inner surface of the first protective layer and the second inner surface of the second protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the first inner surface of the first protective layer and to the second inner surface of the second protective layer.)
Regarding Claim 8: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the intermediate layer is integrated with the first inner surface of the first protective layer and the second inner surface of the second protective layer while the first scratch-resistant layer and the second scratch-resistant layer are integrated with the first outer surface of first protective layer and the second outer surface of the second protective layer to form a single layer to thereby provide an ultra-thin layer with a reduced thickness ([0196] and [0198] of AllSO; figure 5, [0036]-[0037] of Paulson). (In the instant case, the optical lens of AllSO in view of Paulson is considered to be a single layer, in that the intermediate layer is connected to the first inner surface of the first protective layer and the second inner surface of the second protective layer, and in that the first scratch-resistant layer and the second scratch-resistant layer are connected to the first outer surface of the first protective layer and the second outer surface of the second protective layer, respectively.)
Regarding Claim 9: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the first protective layer has a first degree of hardness that can be greater than a second degree of hardness of the second protective layer ([0042] of Paulson; [0196] of AllSO). (In the instant case, Paulson discloses that the first protective layer and the second protective layer can have a degree of hardness ("hardness") of at least 15 GPa, AllSO discloses that the coatings on opposing sides of the lends (i.e., the first protective layer and the second protective layer) can be the same or different; as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that there would exist a first degree of hardness that can be greater than the second degree of hardness.)
Regarding Claim 10: AllSO in view of Paulson discloses that the first protective layer has a first thickness greater than a second thickness of the second protective layer ([0040] of Paulson; [0196] of AllSO). (In the instant case, Paulson discloses that the first protective layer and the second protective layer can have a thickness of between about 1-5 microns ([0040] of Paulson), AllSO discloses that the coatings on opposing sides of the lends (i.e., the first protective layer and the second protective layer) can be the same or different; as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that there would exist a first thickness that can be greater than the second thickness.)
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights