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 .
The amendment filed 6/26/26 does not overcome the rejections set forth in the office action mailed 3/26/26. The discussion of the rejection set forth over Kawai and Kosaka has been updated as necessitated by the amendments to explain why the antifogging layer of Kawai and Kosaka would have the spectral characteristics recited in the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2019-094468 A) in view of Kosaka (U.S. Pat. No. 6,448,304).
An English-language machine translation of Kawai, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation unless otherwise noted.
In paragraph 9 Kawai discloses a coating composition capable of forming a cured film with good anti-fogging performance. In paragraph 87 Kawai discloses that the object to be coated can be eyeglass lenses, meeting the limitations of the substrate of claim 1, and the coated lens comprising the cured anti-fogging film is a spectacle lens as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 13 Kawai discloses that the composition comprises a (meth)acrylic resin, a polyol compound, and a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, corresponding to components (A), (B), and (C) of claim 2. Kawai further discloses in paragraph 13 that the (meth)acrylic resin comprises constituent units derived from monomers (a-1), (a-2), and (a-3), and on pages 5-6 of the original Japanese reference, Kawai discloses that these monomers correspond to the monomers (a-1), (a-2), and (a-3) of claim 2.
The differences between Kawai and the currently presented claims are:
i) In paragraph 74 Kawai discloses that the composition can further comprise ultraviolet absorbers, but does not specifically disclose the spectral characteristics of the anti-fogging layer or specific suitable ultraviolet absorbers.
ii) Kosaka does not specifically disclose forming the substrate out of a resin.
With respect to i), Kosaka, in column 1 lines 17-23, discloses optical materials, specifically plastic lenses, of good UV absorbability for spectacles. In column 3 lines 1-19 Kosaka discloses that the optical material can comprise a benzotriazole compound. When the R′′ group in the benzotriazole compound of Kosaka is a hydrogen atom, the benzotriazole compound meets the limitations of the UV absorber of claim 3 for the case where n1 is 2 or 3. In column 5 lines 21-25 Kosaka discloses specific benzotriazole compounds meeting the limitations of the UV absorber of claim 3. The incorporation of the benzotriazole-based UV absorber of Kosaka in the anti-fogging film of Kawai therefore produces a spectacle lens meeting the structural and compositional limitations of claims 1-3. Since the anti-fogging film of Kawai and the UV absorber of Kosaka meets the limitations of the specific claimed cured film and UV absorber, they will lead to an anti-fogging film having the spectral characteristics recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the benzotriazole-based UV absorber of Kosaka as the UV absorber in the anti-fogging film of the spectacle lens of Kawai, since Kosaka teaches that it is a suitable UV absorber for use in spectacle lenses.
With respect to ii), Kosaka discloses in column 5 lines 46-53 that the lenses can use poly(thio)urethane lenses or polycarbonates as the substrates, meeting the limitations of the substrate made of resin of claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the lens substrates of Kawai from the resins of Kosaka, since Kosaka teaches that they are suitable substrates for spectacle lenses.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Kosaka as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, and further in view of Dalzell (U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,707).
The discussion of Kawai and Kosaka in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Kawai and Kosaka disclose a spectacle lens meeting the limitations of claim 1, but do not disclose that the lens is dyed with a colorant.
In column 3 lines 24-27 Dalzell discloses plastic light-polarizing lenses, and in the abstract discloses that the lenses are especially suites as sunglass lenses for spectacles. In column 7 lines 9-29 Dalzell further discusses the construction of the lenses, and discloses that colored dyes can be employed, as recited in claim 5, including gray dyes, as recited in claim 6, in order to obtain a lens of desired color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dyes of Dalzell in the spectacle lens of Kawai and Kosaka, since Dalzell teaches that they can suitable be included in lenses in order to provide a desired color.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2019-094468 A) in view of Glöge (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0243161).
An English-language machine translation of Kawai, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation unless otherwise noted.
In paragraph 9 Kawai discloses a coating composition capable of forming a cured film with good anti-fogging performance. In paragraph 87 Kawai discloses that the object to be coated can be eyeglass lenses, meeting the limitations of the substrate of claim 1, and the coated lens comprising the cured anti-fogging film is a spectacle lens as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 13 Kawai discloses that the composition comprises a (meth)acrylic resin, a polyol compound, and a polyfunctional isocyanate compound, corresponding to components (A), (B), and (C) of claim 2. Kawai further discloses in paragraph 13 that the (meth)acrylic resin comprises constituent units derived from monomers (a-1), (a-2), and (a-3), and on pages 5-6 of the original Japanese reference, Kawai discloses that these monomers correspond to the monomers (a-1), (a-2), and (a-3) of claim 2.
In paragraph 74 Kawai discloses that the composition can further comprise ultraviolet absorbers, but does not specifically disclose the spectral characteristics of the anti-fogging layer or specific suitable ultraviolet absorbers.
Glöge, in paragraph 236, discloses that 2,2′,4,4′-tetrahydroxybenzophenone is a suitable UV absorber for spectacle lenses. 2,2′,4,4′-tetrahydroxybenzophenone meets the limitations of the UV absorber of claim 4 for the case where both n2 and n3 are 2. Including the 2,2′,4,4′-tetrahydroxybenzophenone of Glöge as the UV absorber in the anti-fogging film of the spectacle lens of Kawai meets the compositional and structural limitations of claims 1-2 and 4, and since the UV absorber of Glöge meets the limitations of the specific claimed UV absorber, it will lead to an anti-fogging film having the spectral characteristics recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the 2,2′,4,4′-tetrahydroxybenzophenone of Glöge as the UV absorber in the anti-fogging film of the spectacle lens of Kawai, since Glöge teaches that it is a suitable UV absorber for use in spectacle lenses.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Kosaka as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, and further in view of Dalzell (U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,707).
The discussion of Kawai and Glöge in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference. Kawai and Glöge disclose a spectacle lens meeting the limitations of claim 1, but do not disclose that the lens is dyed with a colorant, and do not specifically disclose that the lens is made of resin.
In column 3 lines 24-27 Dalzell discloses plastic light-polarizing lenses, and in the abstract discloses that the lenses are especially suites as sunglass lenses for spectacles. In column 7 lines 9-29 Dalzell further discusses the construction of the lenses, and discloses that colored dyes can be employed, as recited in claim 5, including gray dyes, as recited in claim 6, in order to obtain a lens of desired color. In column 6 lines 14-47 Dalzell discloses that the lens can include sheets made of resin materials, as recited in claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dyes of Dalzell in the spectacle lens of Kawai and Glöge, since Dalzell teaches that they can suitable be included in lenses in order to provide a desired color. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the substrate in the spectacle lens of Kawai and Glöge of the resin materials of Dalzell, since Dalzell teaches that they are suitable materials for forming a spectacle lens, and in column 6 lines 13-18, 27-30, and 32-37 Dalzell teaches that the resins have favorable properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejections over Kawai and Glöge, applicant argues that Kawai (and Dalzell) do not disclose any light transmittance, and that Glöge teaches an ultrathin lens having a high transmittance at 360 nm. However, the rejection contemplates the use of the UV absorber of Glöge in the antifogging layer of Kawai (or Kawai and Dalzell), rather than the use of the lens of Glöge, and the claims recite the spectral characteristics of the antifogging layer rather than the overall lens. Additionally, paragraph 40 of Glöge, cited by applicant, only discusses the transmittance at 400 nm to 800 nm, and the table following paragraph 299 discloses 360 nm at the “lower limit of UV radiation”, with a maximum transmission of 2%; there is no indication that the high transmittance values reported for Examples 7-8 are measured at 360 nm. There is also no indication that the lenses of examples 7-8 of Glöge contain the UV absorber relied upon in the rejection. The examiner therefore maintains the position taken in the rejection. Kawai and Glöge, or Kawai, Glöge, and Dalzell disclose an anti-fogging layer meeting the compositional limitations of the claimed antifogging layer, including a specific resin within the scope of claim 2 and a specific UV absorber within the scope of claim 4. The antifogging layer of Kawai and Glöge will therefore have spectral characteristics meeting the limitations of the amended claims.
Similarly, the antifogging layer of Kawai and Kosaka also meets the compositional limitations of the claimed antifogging layer, including a specific resin within the scope of claim 2 and a specific UV absorber within the scope of claim 3. The antifogging layer of Kawai and Kosaka will therefore have spectral characteristics meeting the limitations of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights