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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that prior art of record Barzak fails to teach a tint within a lens body. The examiner respectfully disagrees since in Fig. 1 The examiner interprets that layer 20 is the outer surface of the lens body and layer 40 (the tinted layer) is inside layer 20. Therefore, the tint would be inside the lens body.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., none of the cited documents teach or disclose a semi-finished lens wherein the tint is defined directly within the lens body without requiring an adhesive or a process that joins such extra layer to the other/s layer/s) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Barzak teaches a tinted layer 40 inside the lens body (Fig.1). The claims do not specify that the tinted layer is directly within the lens body without requiring an adhesive or a process that joins such extra layers.
Applicants argue that prior art of record Barzak fails to teach a tint on the convex side of lens directly with a lens body. The examiner respectfully disagrees since Barzak teaches (in annotated Figure below) tint (40) on the convex side of lens directly with a lens body.
PNG
media_image1.png
750
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barzak (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0329184 A1).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 1, a semi-finished ophthalmic lens (Fig. 1) for glasses comprising a lens body (70) within which at least one tint (40) is defined, a body (50) being over-injected onto said lens body (¶0056 “layer 50 is fused directly to layer 40 of wafer 70 during the injection-molding process”), lacquering layers (60 and ¶0058 “light filtering coatings that regulate or limit ultraviolet, infrared or visible transmission”) being respectively arranged to cover said lens body (70) and said over-injected body (50 ¶0073) and wherein said at least one tint (40) is made on the a convex side (surface 400 is convex), opposite to that of an eye of a the wearer's eye (See annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barzak teaches, as in claim 10, wherein said at least one tint (40) is arranged adjacent to the over-injected body (50), inside said lens body (70).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 14, a process for making a semi-finished ophthalmic lens for glasses and the like, characterised in that it comprises the process including the following steps consisting in making at least one tint (40) within a lens body (70), over-injecting a body (50) onto said lens body (70), and arranging two lacquering layers (60 and ¶0058 “light filtering coatings that regulate or limit ultraviolet, infrared or visible transmission”) to protect said lens body (70) and said over-injected body (50) respectively.
Barzak teaches, as in claim 15, wherein said at least one tint (40) is made within said lens body (70) adjacent to said over-injected body (50).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 17, wherein making a tint (40) in a polarizing wafer (30) arranged between one of said lacquering layers (60) and said lens body(50).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 18, the step of colouring said lens body (70) prior to said step of over-injecting said over-injected body (50, Fig. 2, ¶0061,0073).
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.
Claims 2-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Barzak (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0329184 A1) in view of Mccabe (WO Patent Publication Number 2013070417 A1).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 2, a functionalised layer (30) arranged between a first outer layer (20) made of polycarbonate and a second inner layer (40) made of polycarbonate. Barzak fails to teach, second polycarbonate layer being arranged adjacent to said lens body. In a related art, Mccabe teaches ophthalmic lens (Fig. 54) for glasses comprising a functionalised layer (508) arranged between a first outer layer (510) made of polycarbonate (¶0260) and a second inner layer (512) made of polycarbonate (¶0260), said second polycarbonate layer (512) being arranged adjacent to said lens body (504).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, with the functionalised layer, as taught by Mccabe, for the purpose of providing an optical filter designed to provide chroma enhancement in one or more portions of the visible spectrum (¶0260).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 3, wherein said functionalised layer (30) is a polarizing layer (¶0033).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 4, wherein said first outer layer made of polycarbonate, said polarizing layer and said second layer preferably made of polycarbonate define a polarising wafer. In a related art, Mccabe teaches, ophthalmic lens (Fig. 54) wherein said first outer layer (510) made of polycarbonate, said polarizing layer (508) and said second layer (512) preferably made of polycarbonate define a polarising wafer (506).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Mccabe, with the functionalised layer, as taught by Mccabe, for the purpose of providing an optical filter designed to provide chroma enhancement in one or more portions of the visible spectrum (¶0260).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 8, wherein said first outer layer preferably made of polycarbonate comprises a tint arranged therein. In a related art, Mccabe teaches ophthalmic lens (Fig. 54) wherein said first outer layer (510) preferably made of polycarbonate (¶0260) comprises a tint arranged therein (¶0225).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Mccabe, with the functionalised layer, as taught by Mccabe, for the purpose of providing an optical filter designed to provide chroma enhancement in one or more portions of the visible spectrum (¶0260).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 9, a lacquering layer of said lacquering layers is arranged to protect said polarising wafer. In a related art, Mccabe teaches ophthalmic lens (Fig. 54) wherein a lacquering layer (518) of said lacquering layers (518 and 520) is arranged to protect said polarising wafer (¶0226).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Mccabe, with the functionalised layer, as taught by Mccabe, for the purpose of providing an optical filter designed to provide chroma enhancement in one or more portions of the visible spectrum (¶0260).
Claims 5, 11-13, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Barzak (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0329184 A1) in view of Ambler (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0363659 A1).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 5, wherein said lens body comprises at least two tints. In a related art, Ambler teaches an optical device wherein said lens body (200) comprises at least two tints (10,20 and 55 ¶ 0046 & 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, with the tint, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 11, a lens body comprises at least one thermoformed non-polarizing wafer, made of transparent polycarbonate, at least a tint being arranged within said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer. In a related art, Ambler teaches a lens body (200) comprises at least one thermoformed non-polarizing wafer1 (100, ¶0137), made of transparent polycarbonate (¶0031 “Many different optical materials are used to form eyewear lenses… optical-grade thermoplastics such as polycarbonates and other materials”), at least a tint (30) being arranged within said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, with the non-polarizing wafer, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 12, wherein said lens body comprises said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer. In a related art, Ambler teaches wherein said lens body (200) comprises said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100, ¶0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Ambler, with the non-polarizing wafer, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 13, lens body comprises a further lens body associated with said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer. In a related art, Ambler teaches an optical device, lens body (200) comprises a further lens body (50 ¶0128 “performance characteristics of the eyewear lens, such as physical strength, optical power,”) associated with said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100, ¶0137), over- injected ( ¶0139 “Layer 50 and/or layer 50′ can be combined with multilayer laminate 10 and other optional elements of the eyewear lens by various methods of optical lens molding, casting”) onto said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Ambler, with the non-polarizing wafer, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 16, wherein said lens body comprises at least two tints. In a related art, Ambler teaches an optical device wherein said lens body comprises at least two tints (10,20 and 55 ¶ 0046 & 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, with the tint, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 19, wherein said step of making at least one tint within a lens body comprises includes the steps of having a thermoformed non-polarizing wafer, and making at least one tint within said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer. In a related art, Ambler teaches an optical device within a lens body (200) comprises includes the steps of having a thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100, ¶0137), and making at least one tint (10) within said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, with the tint, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak fails to teach, as in claim 20, the step of over injecting a further lens body, coloured, onto said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer. In a related art, Ambler teaches the step of over injecting a further lens body (50), coloured (¶0126), onto said thermoformed non-polarizing wafer (100, ¶0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak and Ambler, with the tint, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Barzak (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0329184 A1) in view of Mccabe (WO Patent Publication Number 2013/070417 A1) and in further view of in view of Ambler (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0363659 A1).
Barzak and Mccabe fail to teach, as in claim 6, wherein at least one first tint is made on the convex side, opposite to that of the eye of the wearer's eye, and at least one second tint is made on a concave side, on a side of the eye of the wearer. In a related art, Ambler teaches an optical device wherein at least one first tint (10) is made on the convex side (element 100 is convex), opposite to that of the eye of the wearer's eye (the user’s eye would be at surface 55), and at least one second tint (55, ¶0130 “polarizing coatings are selected from linear, gradient linear, elliptical, circular or variable polarizers, and can comprise solid, mixed, multiple or gradient tints”) is made on the a concave side (concave in Fig. 3) on a side of the eye of the wearer (user would use the lens at surface 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified a semi-finished ophthalmic lens, as taught by Barzak, Mccabe and Ambler, with the tint, as taught by Ambler, for the purpose of providing a laminate that has a discernible color and a permanently lower visible transmittance (¶0050).
Barzak teaches, as in claim 7, wherein one lacquering layer (¶0058 “additional layers”) of said lacquering layers (60) is arranged on the concave side (“additional layers may be placed on 55 surface 500”), on the side (500) of the eye of the wearer's eye and adjacent to said over-injected body (50).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
04 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Ambler teaches multilayer 100 is not a polarizing wafer, multilayer 100 is a photochromic layer.