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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, though Watanabe did not specify utilizing silver specifically in the metal-containing layer, Watanabe did teach utilizing and combining metal oxides to adjust the refractive index of the ground layer (Watanabe para. 0066) and gives a non-exhaustive list of examples for various metal oxides that may be utilized. Rigato then teaches silver as an example metal to use in a metallic layer (Rigato para. 0001). Therefore, the combination of Watanabe and Rigato still teaches the amended claim 1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 12/22/2025 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/27/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe US 20170131438 (hereinafter “Watanabe”) of record in view of Rigato et. al US 20130258278 (hereinafter “Rigato”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a spectacle lens (Watanabe para. 0011) comprising:
a lens substrate (Watanabe para. 0011-0013 - lens substrate); and
an inorganic layer (Watanabe para. 0011-0013 - hard coat layer, where para. 0012 says the hard coat layer contains an inorganic oxide),
the spectacle lens further comprising:
a metal-containing layer (Watanabe para. 0013 - ground layer) between the lens substrate and the inorganic layer (Watanabe para. 0013 - places the ground layer between the lens substrate and the hard coat layer),
wherein metals that are contained in the metal-containing layer (Watanabe para. 0066) are
one or more metals selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, zinc, copper, zirconium, molybdenum, lead, gold and palladium (Watanabe para. 0066 - zirconium, zinc).
Watanabe does not specify using an oxide of silver in the metal-containing layer, however Watanabe does teach utilizing a metal oxide and mixing two or more kinds of metal oxides to adjust the refractive index of the ground layer (Watanabe para. 0066).
In the same field of endeavor, Rigato teaches a metal-containing layer containing silver, though it could also contain zirconium as a mixture (Rigato para. 0001) for the purpose of reflecting the radiation of the solar to the infrared spectrum (Rigato para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a metal-containing layer including silver as taught by Rigato in the spectacle lens of Watanabe in order to reflect the radiation of the solar to the infrared spectrum (Rigato para. 0041).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 1, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein, as the one or more metals that are contained in the metal-containing layer, one or more metals selected from the group consisting of zirconium, gold and palladium are contained (Watanabe para. 0066).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 1, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein, as the one or more metals that are contained in the metal-containing layer, zirconium is contained (Watanabe para. 0066).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 1, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order (Watanabe para. 0031 – a lens substrate has a ground layer and a hard coat disposed sequentially on its surface, and para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin), and
the metal-containing layer is the cured layer (Watanabe para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe and Rigato teach spectacles comprising:
the spectacle lens according to claim 1 (Watanabe para. 0080, see also claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 2, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein, as the one or more metals that are contained in the metal-containing layer, zirconium is contained (Watanabe para. 0066).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 2, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order (Watanabe para. 0031 – a lens substrate has a ground layer and a hard coat disposed sequentially on its surface, and para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin), and
the metal-containing layer is the cured layer (Watanabe para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe and Rigato teach spectacles comprising:
the spectacle lens according to claim 2 (Watanabe para. 0080, see also claim 2 rejection above).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 3, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order (Watanabe para. 0031 – a lens substrate has a ground layer and a hard coat disposed sequentially on its surface, and para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin), and
the metal-containing layer is the cured layer (Watanabe para. 0066-0067 – the ground layer may include a resin).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe and Rigato teach spectacles comprising:
the spectacle lens according to claim 3 (Watanabe para. 0080, see also claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe and Rigato teach spectacles comprising:
the spectacle lens according to claim 4 (Watanabe para. 0080, see also claim 4 rejection above).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 1, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein the metal-containing layer (ground layer) is a single layer (Watanabe para. 0013, 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe and Rigato teach the spectacle lens according to claim 1, and Watanabe further teaches
wherein the one or more metals selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, zinc, copper, zirconium, molybdenum, lead, gold and palladium (Watanabe para. 0066 - zirconium, zinc) is an oxide (Watanabe para. 0066).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872