DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/22/2026.
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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaki et al (WO 2020196449, US equivalent US 2022/0004028, all line numbers listed below are line numbers in US 2022/0004028) in the view of Wei (US 20170153495).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayasaki teaches an optical laminate for eyewear (abstract; figs. 1-2) comprising:
a light reflecting layer comprising one cholesteric liquid crystal layer (figs. 1-2, 2, 3, 4-- light reflection layers; abstract; line 1-20, The two or more light reflection layers are selected from at least one light reflection layer RPRL having a center wavelength of selective reflection in the range of 400 nm or more and 900 nm or less, in which a cholesteric liquid crystal phase with a right-handed spiral structure having right-handed circularly polarized light reflectivity is fixed, and at least one light reflection layer LPRL having a center wavelength of selective reflection in the range of 400 nm or more and 900 nm or less, in which a cholesteric liquid crystal phase with a left-handed spiral structure having left-handed circularly polarized light reflectivity is fixed), and
a support sandwiching the light reflecting layer (¶[0004], line 1-14, a polarizing element is interposed between supporting materials such as polycarbonate; ¶[0006], line 1-12, for arranging a multilayer film inside the support material, i.e. , between the polarizing element and the support material can be employed);
wherein a reflection hue of the light reflecting layer exhibits a silver color (¶[0061], line 1-31, metallic silver tone is produced; it is enables to produce an optical film that exhibits reflected light having a colorless tone or metallic silver tone),
the light reflecting layer has a reflection characteristic over a wavelength range of at least 380 nm to 900 nm (fig. 3, --reflectance in 380 nm- 900 nm), and
an absolute value of a difference between an average reflectance (R1) at 500 nm to 700 nm and an average reflectance (R2) at 701 nm to 900 nm of the light reflecting layer is 10 percent or less in the wavelength range (fig. 3, showing that average reflectance in 500 nm to 700 nm is in a range of 16% -20%; average reflectance in 700 nm to 900 nm is in a range of 15% -24%; so an absolute value of a difference Δ(R1 - R2) is within 10%),
wherein the film thickness of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is 2 µm to 10 µm (¶[0062], line 1-5, The thickness of each light reflection layer is preferably 0.2 µm or more and 2 µm or less).
But Hayasaki does not specifically disclose that wherein the optical laminate has a configuration of a first support/cholesteric liquid crystal layer R form or L form/second support.
However, Wei in the same field of endeavor teaches a liquid crystal device (abstract; figs. 2-5; ¶[0005], line 12-15, The current main solutions are that an anti-blue light protection film is adhered to the screen, or the user wears on anti-blue light glasses), wherein a support sandwiching the light reflecting layer (fig. 5, 3- liquid crystal layer; 1 and 2- substrates; ¶[0011], line 1-12, …provides an anti-blue light polarizer including at least a left spiral cholesteric phase liquid crystal film and at least a right spiral cholesteric phase liquid crystal); and
wherein the optical laminate has a configuration of a first support/cholesteric liquid crystal layer R form or L form/second support (fig. 2, the cholesteric phase liquid crystal 200 between two substrates; fig. 4, left spiral cholesteric phase liquid crystal film 60 between two substrates, and right spiral cholesteric phase liquid crystal film70 between two substrates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical laminate for eyewear of Hayasaki by the liquid crystal device of Wei for a purpose of capable of achieving the favorable anti-blue light effect with the premise of not reducing screen brightness and not producing color difference (¶[0010], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches the optical laminate for eyewear according to claim 1, wherein the amount of change in reflection hue of the light reflecting layer satisfies Δa* ≤ 2.0 and Δb* ≤ 2.0 when an observation position is inclined to 60° where a direction in which the observation position is perpendicular to a reflective surface is set as 0°, wherein a* and b* are hue values obtained in the CIE 1976 color space L*, a*, b*, and the Δa* and the Δb* represent hue differences from the inclination angle of 60 degrees with respect to the inclination angle of 0 degree. (---this portion of claim is of function/property claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Hayasaki - Wei combination are same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that light reflection functions provided by Hayasaki - Wei combination have same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches the optical laminate for eyewear according to claim 1,further comprising a polarizing element (fig. 2, 8- polarizing element layer, as disclosed in Hayasaki).
Regarding Claim 5, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches the optical laminate for eyewear according to claim 1,comprising, in this order from an external light incident side: the support; the light reflecting layer; the polarizing element; and the support (fig. 2, 2/3/4- light reflection layers, 8- polarizing element layer; ¶[0004], line 1-14, a polarizing element is interposed between supporting materials such as polycarbonate; ¶[0006], line 1-12, for arranging a multilayer film inside the support material, i.e. , between the polarizing element and the support material can be employed, as disclosed in Hayasaki).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches the optical laminate for eyewear according to claim 5, wherein a visibility correction polarization degree (Py) is 75% or more and less than 100% (¶[0019], line 1-2, a degree of polarization is 90% or more; Table 5, listing of degree of polarization, as disclosed in Hayasaki).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches a lens comprising: the optical laminate for eyewear according to claim 1 (¶[0002], line 1-7, an optical film; Such an optical film is mainly applied to eyewear (sunglasses, goggles, helmet visors, etc.) , as disclosed in Hayasaki).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayasaki - Wei combination teaches Eyewear comprising the lens according to claim 7 (¶[0002], line 1-7, an optical film; Such an optical film is mainly applied to eyewear (sunglasses, goggles, helmet visors, etc.); ¶[0003], line 1-5, in sunglasses, a lens portion is colored with a pigment, as disclosed in Hayasaki).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current new rejections.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights