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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 3rd, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 3rd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-20 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 claims dependency upon claim 11, which is cancelled in the claims submitted on April 3rd, 2026. For examination purposes, claim 16 is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-2, 7, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 102342017 B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0028676), further in view of Ma (CN 109959979 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a spectacle lens ([0020], “eyeglasses”) comprising:
a lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 10); and
an inorganic layer (50),
the spectacle lens further comprising:
a metal-containing layer (40) between the lens substrate and the inorganic layer (50 is located between the substrate 10 and inorganic layer 50),
wherein a metal that is contained in the metal-containing layer is one or more metals selected from the group consisting of silver and platinum ([0028], “nano silver coating layer (40)”).
Song does not specifically disclose wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order, and the metal-containing layer is the cured layer.
However Yasuda, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate (Fig. 2, element 2), a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition (element 4) and the inorganic layer in this order (element 5, [0053], “the silver nano-disk layer 4 and the layer of low refractive index 5 are sequentially laminated”), and the metal-containing layer is the cured layer ([0052], “a plurality of silver nano-disks 42 in a binder 41”).
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 Song with the wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a cured layer obtained by curing a curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order, and the metal-containing layer is the cured layer as taught by Yasuda, for the purpose of minimizing reflections ([0009]).
Modified Song does not specifically disclose wherein a film thickness of the cured layer is 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less.
However Ma, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein a film thickness of the cured layer is 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less ([0035], “The antibacterial layer 6 is a transparent nano-silicone coating with a thickness of 20μm-30μm”).
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 Song in view of Yasuda with the wherein a film thickness of the cured layer is 1 μm or more and 100 μm or less as taught by Ma, for the purpose of making use of the bactericidal effect of silver ions ([0035]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Song further discloses wherein the metal-containing layer contains at least a silver-containing component ([0028], “nano silver coating layer (40)”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 102342017 B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0028676), further in view of Ma (CN 109959979 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) and Yasuda2 (US 2017/0315270).
Regarding claim 3, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer further contains a platinum-containing component.
However Yasuda2, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the metal-containing layer (4) further contains a platinum-containing component ([0029], “an alloy including one or more metals selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, platinum, and aluminum”).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma with the wherein the metal-containing layer further contains a platinum-containing component as taught by Yasuda2, for the purpose of improving the antireflection ([0140]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Claims 5-6, 9, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 102342017 B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0028676), further in view of Ma (CN 109959979 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) and Yoneyama (JP 2006184849 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 2), a foundation layer (5), the cured layer (6) obtained by curing the curable composition ([0040], “wet coating”, a wet layer will be cured to form the final layer) and the inorganic layer in this order (7).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma with the wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the number of the foundation layer (Fig. 1, element 5) is two or more (layer 5 comprises layers 11-15 ass shown in Fig. 1, with layer 13 being the metal layer).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma and Yoneyama with the wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 2 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 2), a foundation layer (5), the cured layer (6) obtained by curing the curable composition ([0040], “wet coating”, a wet layer will be cured to form the final layer) and the inorganic layer in this order (7).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma with the wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the number of the foundation layer (Fig. 1, element 5) is two or more (layer 5 comprises layers 11-15 ass shown in Fig. 1, with layer 13 being the metal layer).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma and Yoneyama with the wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the number of the foundation layer (Fig. 1, element 5) is two or more (layer 5 comprises layers 11-15 ass shown in Fig. 1, with layer 13 being the metal layer).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma and Yoneyama with the wherein the number of the foundation layer is two or more as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 14 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 102342017 B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0028676), further in view of Ma (CN 109959979 A, as evidenced by the machine translation), Yasuda2 (US 2017/0315270), and Yoneyama (JP 2006184849 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order.
However Yoneyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate (Fig. 1, element 2), a foundation layer (5), the cured layer (6) obtained by curing the curable composition ([0040], “wet coating”, a wet layer will be cured to form the final layer) and the inorganic layer in this order (7).
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 Song in view of Yasuda, further in view of Ma and Yasuda2 with the wherein the spectacle lens has the lens substrate, a foundation layer, the cured layer obtained by curing the curable composition and the inorganic layer in this order as taught by Yoneyama, for the purpose of sufficiently reducing reflections ([0006]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above and Song further discloses spectacles comprising: the spectacle lenses ([0020], “eyeglasses”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 102342017 B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Yasuda (US 2017/0028676), further in view of Ma (CN 109959979 A, as evidenced by the machine translation) and Park (KR20210127530A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, modified Song teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the metal-containing layer is a layer containing a metal in the form of an oxide.
However Park, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a coated glass, teaches the metal-containing layer is a layer containing a metal in the form of an oxide ([0022], "in particular, the antibacterial inorganic material may be used alone with silver oxide (Ag₂O)").
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 Song in view of Yasuda further in view of Ma with the metal-containing layer is a layer containing a metal in the form of an oxide as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the antibacterial power of the lens ([0014]).
Conclusion
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 8 April 2026
Prosecution Insights