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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2019/0375676) in view of Oya (US 2017/0096574).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a spectacle lens ([0153], “The glass substrate disclosed herein could be used for a variety of applications. These may include eyewear”) comprising: a substrate ([0153], “The glass substrate”); and a water-absorbent antifogging layer ([0017], “a coated glass substrate having antifog properties”, [0057], “hydrophilic polymer may allow for the absorption of water into the film thereby reducing or eliminating the fogging effect”),
wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer is an outermost layer of the spectacle lens ([0246], “the coated glass article with a single layer is provided below”, as disclosed in claim 1 and [0246], there is only the single coating layer and thus the antifogging coating layer is the outermost layer), and
the water-absorbent antifogging layer contains a resin having a siloxane bonding unit ([0074], “such binder may be a silicon-containing resin. The silicon-containing resin may be a polysiloxane resin”),
wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer ([0144], “the coating formulation may be polymerized to form the interpenetrating network”) is a cured film of a coating composition containing a constituent unit derived from a siloxane compound ([0144], “form the crosslinked polyol and polysiloxane”) and a constituent unit derived from acrylamide ([0144], “also be employed to polymerize any acrylamide compounds”).
Liang does not specifically disclose wherein a solid content concentration of the coating composition is 16.5 to 24.5 mass%.
However Oya, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an antifogging coating, teaches wherein a solid content concentration of the coating composition is 16.5 to 24.5 mass% (Table 1 and [0159], Examples A2-A4 each have a mass% of 23%, 18%, and 18% respectively, therefore lying within the 16.5 to 24.5%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Liang with the wherein a solid content concentration of the coating composition is 16.5 to 24.5 mass% as taught by Oya, for the purpose of improving the anti-fog properties of the coating ([0012]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Liang teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Liang further discloses wherein a film thickness of the water-absorbent antifogging layer is 6 µm or more ([0245], “The coating solution was provided to allow for a film thickness of 10-20 microns”, [0246], thickness of coating 484-136-2 is 16.1 µm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liang teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Liang further discloses wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer is directly built up on the substrate ([0027], “cross-hatch adhesion provides an assessment of the adhesion of the coating to the substrate”, [0183], “Excellent mechanical and adhesive strength was achieved as there is no indication of any damage on the coated layer”, examiner interprets this to mean the antifogging coating is directly layered onto the substrate).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2019/0375676) in view of Oya (US 2017/0096574), further in view of Roche (EP 1875836 A2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liang teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer has water repellent performance.
However Roche, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an antifogging coating, teaches wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer has water repellent performance ([0072], “combining a porous, hydrophobic surface with a hydrophilic base polymer, it is possible to obtain a composition possessing excellent anti-fog characteristics and surface hardness”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Liang in view of Oya with the wherein the water-absorbent antifogging layer has water repellent performance as taught by Roche, for the purpose of increasing surface hardness while maintaining antifogging characteristics ([0072]).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 16 March 2026