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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto et al. (JP 2015-030803) in view of Kawai et al. (JP 2019-094468).
Regarding claim 1, Takimoto discloses a composition (including methanol – MeOH; page 28, para [0058]) for an antifogging film of a spectacle lens (page 1, para [0001]; page 2, para [0002]) but does not expressly disclose that the composition (page 29, para [0058]) has a viscosity at 15°C of 47 mPa • s or more and 80 mPa • s or less, and a solid content of 10 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less.
However, Kawai discloses a composition for an antifogging film (page 4, para [0009]) having excellent antifogging properties (page 4, para [0009]), wherein the composition has a solid content of 10 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less, such as 20 mass% (page 35, para [0076]), and contains components (A) to (C) (Claim 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
474
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the composition for an antifogging film of Takimoto with the composition for an antifogging film of Kawai (page 4, para [0009]), wherein the composition has a solid content of 10 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less, such as 20 mass% (Kawai: page 35, para [0076]), and contains components (A) to (C) (Kawai: Claim 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
474
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in order to obtain the benefits of forming an antifogging film that has excellent antifogging properties as taught by Kawai (page 4, para [0009]). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the composition for an antifogging film of Kawai (Kawai: Claim 1) is the same as Applicant’s composition for an antifogging film (see Applicant’s Claim 4 and Specification pages 11-12, para [0014]), and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected the composition for the antifogging film of Kawai to have the same recited physical properties of Applicant’s composition for an antifogging film having a viscosity at 15°C of 47 mPa • s or more and 80 mPa • s or less, and at a solid content of 10 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less, such as 20 mass% (Kawai: page 35, para [0076]). Therefore, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses all the recited limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a composition with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the solid content is 17 mass% or more, such as 20 mass% (Kawai: page 35, para [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a composition with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the composition contains components (A) to (C) (Kawai: components (A) to (C) of Claim 1 of Kawai):
PNG
media_image1.png
474
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a spectacle lens (Takimoto: page 2, para [0002]) comprising an antifogging film obtained by curing the composition for an antifogging film (Kawai: components (A) to (C) of Claim 1 of Kawai) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a spectacle lens with all the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the antifogging film is an outermost layer (Takimoto: page 29, para [0059]; page 2, para [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a spectacle lens with all the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the spectacle lens (Takimoto: page 2, para [0002]) has a substrate (Takimoto: page 29, para [0059]), and an antifogging film (Kawai: components (A) to (C) of Claim 1 of Kawai) directly on the substrate (Takimoto: page 28, para [0058]; page 29, para [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Takimoto as modified by Kawai discloses a spectacle lens with all the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the antifogging film (Kawai: components (A) to (C) of Claim 1 of Kawai) is a single layer (Takimoto: antifogging film is coated then cured as a single layer; page 29, para [0059]; page 2, para [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art references of Takimoto et al. (JP 2015-030803) and Kawai et al. (JP 2019-094468) do not teach or suggest at least the newly claimed feature as presently recited. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and notes that Takimoto in view of Kawai discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above. In particular, Kawai discloses an antifogging film (Kawai: components (A) to (C) of Claim 1 of Kawai) that is the same as Applicant’s composition for an antifogging film (see Applicant’s Claim 4 and Specification pages 11-12, para [0014]), and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected the composition for the antifogging film of Kawai to have the same recited physical properties of Applicant’s composition for an antifogging film having a viscosity at 15°C of 47 mPa • s or more and 80 mPa • s or less, and at solid content of 10 mass% or more and 25 mass% or less, such as 20 mass% (Kawai: page 35, para [0076]). Therefore, Takimoto in view of Kawai discloses all the recited limitations as presented in the new grounds of rejection above.
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 PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights