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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 14-26, 28, and 34-35 in the reply filed on December 10th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the different species are directed to different claims and not different exemplary embodiments, and the application is not a PCT application in national stage and cannot be restricted based on unity of invention.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, 14-26, 28, and 34-35, drawn to drawn to a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer comprising silver in a SiO2 matrix, classified in C03C2217/213.
II. Claims 8, 11-13, 27, and 29, drawn to a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a photochromic effect, classified in G02B5/23.
III. Claims 9 and 30-32, drawn to a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a diffusivity to absorb water molecules, classified in C08J7/056.
IV. Claims 10 and 33, drawn to a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a silver ions dissolve into deionized water, classified in C03C17/007.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species I, II, III, and IV. The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, where invention I discloses a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer comprising silver in a SiO2 matrix (first embodiment [0291]), invention II discloses a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a photochromic effect (second embodiment [0304]), invention III discloses a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a diffusivity to absorb water molecules (third embodiment [0313]), and invention IV discloses a spectacle lens with an outermost stack layer having a silver ions dissolve into deionized water (fourth embodiment [0315]). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Separate classification
Recognized divergent subject matter
A different field of search
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on November 13th, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2020/128598 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 12th, 2023, November 27th, 2023, July 16th, 2024, December 12th, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 25-26 and 28 are 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 25 recites the limitation "the light reflection factor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the light reflection factor” is interpreted as “a light reflection factor”.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected due to dependency.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314).
Regarding claim 1, Nomura discloses a spectacle lens ([0002], “present disclosure relates to a spectacle lens having antibacterial performance”) comprising:
(i) an anti-reflective coating reducing light reflected from a surface of the anti-reflective coating ([0030], “an antireflective film for preventing light reflection on the lens surface, and the like are formed on a spectacle lens substrate”); or
(ii) a mirror coating,
the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers (Fig. 1, elements 13-14), the stack having an outermost stack layer (14), the outermost stack layer containing a plurality of separated silver (Ag) atoms and/or a plurality of silver (Ag) clusters ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”) in a SiO2-matrix ([0020], “the coating film contains a binder component containing silicon oxide as a main component”), each of the silver (Ag) clusters having a maximum expansion within at least one of the following ranges:
(a) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 20 nm,
(b) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 15 nm,
(c) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 10 nm,
(d) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm,
(e) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 15 nm,
(f) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm,
(g) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 20 nm,
(h) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 15 nm, or
(i) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 10 nm ([0061], “the silver particles may have a particle size of 2 nm or more and 5 nm or less”, as conditions a-f above are met, the remaining conditions are not required to be met).
Nomura does not specifically disclose a value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5%.
However Maitre, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches a value for a light reflection factor ρV ([0124], “The “mean light reflection factor,” noted R.sub.v, is such as defined in the ISO 13666:1998 Standard, and measured in accordance with the ISO 8980-4 Standard”) as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% ([0125], “The mean light reflection factor R.sub.v of the face of the lens coated by an anti-reflection coating according to the invention is preferably lower than 2.5% (per face), preferably lower than 2%”).
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 Nomura with the value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% as taught by Maitre, for the purpose of improving the antireflection properties of the final article ([0032]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Nomura further discloses wherein a substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix is within at least one of the following ranges:
a. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.5 at %,
b. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.3 at %,
c. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.2 at %,
d. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.8 at % and 1.5 at %,
e. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.9 at % and 1.3 at %,
f. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.0 at % and 1.2 at %, or
g. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.05 at % and 1.15 at % ([0058], “the content in the coating liquid for forming the coating film 14 may be in a range of 0.025 wt % to 0.10 wt %. The content may be in a range of 0.05 wt % to 0.10 wt %”, conditions a-c are satisfied).
Regarding claim 4, Nomura discloses a spectacle lens ([0002], “present disclosure relates to a spectacle lens having antibacterial performance”) comprising:
(i) an anti-reflective coating reducing light reflected from a surface of the anti-reflective coating ([0030], “an antireflective film for preventing light reflection on the lens surface, and the like are formed on a spectacle lens substrate”); or
(ii) a mirror coating,
the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers (Fig. 1, elements 13-14), the plurality of stack layers having an outermost stack layer (14), the outermost stack layer containing silver (Ag) ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”) in a SiO2-matrix ([0020], “the coating film contains a binder component containing silicon oxide as a main component”), wherein a substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix is within at least one of the following ranges:
a. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.5 at %,
b. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.3 at %,
c. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.2 at %,
d. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.8 at % and 1.5 at %,
e. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.9 at % and 1.3 at %,
f. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.0 at % and 1.2 at %, or
g. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.05 at % and 1.15 at % ([0058], “the content in the coating liquid for forming the coating film 14 may be in a range of 0.025 wt % to 0.10 wt %. The content may be in a range of 0.05 wt % to 0.10 wt %”, conditions a-c are satisfied).
Nomura does not specifically disclose a value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5%.
However Maitre, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches a value for a light reflection factor ρV ([0124], “The “mean light reflection factor,” noted R.sub.v, is such as defined in the ISO 13666:1998 Standard, and measured in accordance with the ISO 8980-4 Standard”) as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% ([0125], “The mean light reflection factor R.sub.v of the face of the lens coated by an anti-reflection coating according to the invention is preferably lower than 2.5% (per face), preferably lower than 2%”).
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 Nomura with the value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% as taught by Maitre, for the purpose of improving the antireflection properties of the final article ([0032]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Nomura further discloses wherein any coating or layer not contributing to an antireflective property of the spectacle lens (12) is not part of the anti-reflective coating ([0031], “spectacle lens 1 of the present embodiment has a hard coat film 12 on one surface 11a”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Nomura further discloses wherein the anti-reflective coating (13) is a transparent thin film structure with alternating layers of contrasting refractive indices ([0075], “an antireflective film in which SiO.sub.2—ZrO.sub.2—SiO.sub.2 layers were alternately built up”), and wherein layer thicknesses are chosen to produce destructive interference in light beams reflected from an interface ([0048], “a multilayer structure formed by building up a low refractive index layer 13L and a high refractive index layer 13H in multiple layers can be exemplified”), and constructive interference in corresponding transmitted light beams ([0047], “a film that prevents reflection of light by an interference action”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Nomura further discloses wherein the outermost stack layer (14) has a thickness within at least one of the following ranges:
i. the outermost stack layer having a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 50 nm,
ii. the outermost stack layer having a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 40 nm,
iii. the outermost stack layer having a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 30 nm,
iv. the outermost stack layer having a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 20 nm, or
v. the outermost stack layer having a thickness in a range of 5 nm to 15 nm ([0079], “a coating film having a film thickness of 15 nm was formed on each of both surfaces (convex surface and concave surface) of the spectacle lens”, conditions 1-5 are met).
Regarding claim 24, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a luminance transmittance in a faded state as defined in 7.5.3.2 of ISO 8980-3:2013(E) exceeds at least one value of the following group: (1) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 95%, (2) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 96%, or (3) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 97%.
However Maitre, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches wherein a luminance transmittance in a faded state as defined in 7.5.3.2 of ISO 8980-3:2013(E) exceeds at least one value of the following group: (1) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 95%, (2) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 96%, or (3) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 97% ([0122], “In another embodiment, Tv ranges from 89% to 98%, preferably from 90% to 98%, better 95% to 97%.”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the wherein a luminance transmittance in a faded state as defined in 7.5.3.2 of ISO 8980-3:2013(E) exceeds at least one value of the following group: (1) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 95%, (2) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 96%, or (3) the value of the luminance transmittance exceeds 97% as taught by Maitre, for the purpose of improving the antireflection properties of the final article ([0032]).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Schiavoni (US 2020/0012180).
Regarding claim 2, Nomura discloses a spectacle lens comprising:
(i) an anti-reflective coating ([0030], “an antireflective film for preventing light reflection on the lens surface, and the like are formed on a spectacle lens substrate”); or
(ii) a mirror coating,
the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers (Fig. 1, elements 13-14), the stack having an outermost stack layer (14), the outermost stack layer containing a plurality of separated silver (Ag) atoms and/or a plurality of silver (Ag) clusters ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”) in a SiO2-matrix ([0020], “the coating film contains a binder component containing silicon oxide as a main component”), each of the silver (Ag) clusters having a maximum expansion within at least one of the following ranges:
(a) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 20 nm,
(b) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 15 nm,
(c) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion of less than 10 nm,
(d) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm,
(e) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 15 nm,
(f) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm,
(g) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 20 nm,
(h) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 15 nm, or
(i) each silver (Ag) cluster having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 10 nm ([0061], “the silver particles may have a particle size of 2 nm or more and 5 nm or less”, as conditions a-f above are met, the remaining conditions are not required to be met).
Nomura does not specifically disclose at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag).
However Schiavoni, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag) ([0059], “in particular functional layers based on silver or on a metal alloy containing silver, and of “(n+1)” coatings for controlling the reflection of the functional layers”).
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 Nomura with the at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag) as taught by Schiavoni, for the purpose of adding low-emissivity properties ([0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Nomura discloses a spectacle lens ([0002], “present disclosure relates to a spectacle lens having antibacterial performance”) comprising:
(i) an anti-reflective coating ([0030], “an antireflective film for preventing light reflection on the lens surface, and the like are formed on a spectacle lens substrate”); or
(ii) a mirror coating,
the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers (Fig. 1, elements 13-14), the stack having an outermost stack layer (14), the outermost stack layer containing silver (Ag) ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”) in a SiO2-matrix ([0020], “the coating film contains a binder component containing silicon oxide as a main component”), wherein a substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix is within at least one of the following ranges:
a. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.5 at %,
b. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.3 at %,
c. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being less than 1.2 at %,
d. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.8 at % and 1.5 at %,
e. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 0.9 at % and 1.3 at %,
f. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.0 at % and 1.2 at %, or
g. the substance proportion of the silver (Ag) in the SiO2-matrix being in the range between 1.05 at % and 1.15 at % ([0058], “the content in the coating liquid for forming the coating film 14 may be in a range of 0.025 wt % to 0.10 wt %. The content may be in a range of 0.05 wt % to 0.10 wt %”, conditions a-c are satisfied).
Nomura does not specifically disclose at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag).
However Schiavoni, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag) ([0059], “in particular functional layers based on silver or on a metal alloy containing silver, and of “(n+1)” coatings for controlling the reflection of the functional layers”).
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 Nomura with the at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer contains the silver (Ag) as taught by Schiavoni, for the purpose of adding low-emissivity properties ([0059]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314), further in view of Schiavoni (US 2020/0012180).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer also contains the silver (Ag).
However Schiavoni, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches wherein at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer also contains the silver (Ag) ([0059], “in particular functional layers based on silver or on a metal alloy containing silver, and of “(n+1)” coatings for controlling the reflection of the functional layers”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the wherein at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer also contains the silver (Ag)as taught by Schiavoni, for the purpose of adding low-emissivity properties ([0059]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and further discloses wherein at least a part of the silver (Ag) in the at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer forms silver (Ag) clusters ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”, examiner interprets particles to be clusters), wherein the silver (Ag) clusters in the at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer have a maximum expansion within at least one of the following ranges:
(a) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 20 nm,
(b) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 15 nm,
(c) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 10 nm,
(d) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm,
(e) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 15 nm,
(f) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm,
(g) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 20 nm,
(h) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 15 nm, or
(i) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 10 nm ([0061], “the silver particles may have a particle size of 2 nm or more and 5 nm or less”, as conditions a-f above are met, the remaining conditions are not required to be met).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314), further in view of Bookbinder (US 2019/0373897).
Regarding claim 22, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of enveloped viruses as measured according to ISO 21702:2019.
However Bookbinder, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of enveloped viruses as measured according to ISO 21702:2019 (as shown in Fig. 10, glass 56 containing silver has over a log3 kill which equates to 99.9% reduction).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of enveloped viruses as measured according to ISO 21702:2019 as taught by Bookbinder, for the purpose of improving the antimicrobial activity ([0004]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of bacteria as measured according to ISO 22196:2011.
However Bookbinder, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of bacteria as measured according to ISO 22196:2011 (as shown in Fig. 10, glass 56 containing silver has over a log3 kill which equates to 99.9% reduction).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the wherein a content of the silver (Ag) in the spectacle lens is set to kill 99.9% of bacteria as measured according to ISO 22196:2011 as taught by Bookbinder, for the purpose of improving the antimicrobial activity ([0004]).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314), further in view of Takahashi (JP2008274409A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 25, Nomura discloses a method for manufacturing a spectacle lens ([0050], “antireflective film 13 is an inorganic substance such as a metal oxide as described above, as a method for forming the inorganic film”) having (i) an anti-reflective coating (Fig. 1, elements 13-14), the anti-reflective coating reducing light reflected from a surface of the anti-reflective coating ([0030], “an antireflective film for preventing light reflection on the lens surface, and the like are formed on a spectacle lens substrate”), or (ii) a mirror coating, the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers (13 is formed of a plurality of layers), the stack having an outermost stack layer containing silver (Ag) ([0031], “a coating film 14 containing tungsten oxide particles, tin oxide particles, and silver particles is provided on the antireflective film 13”),
wherein the silver (Ag) clusters have a maximum expansion within at least one of the following ranges:
(a) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 20 nm,
(b) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 15 nm,
(c) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion of less than 10 nm,
(d) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm,
(e) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 15 nm,
(f) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm,
(g) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 20 nm,
(h) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 15 nm, or
(i) the silver (Ag) clusters having the maximum expansion in the range of 5 nm to 10 nm ([0061], “the silver particles may have a particle size of 2 nm or more and 5 nm or less”, as conditions a-f above are met, the remaining conditions are not required to be met).
Nomura does not specifically disclose a value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5%.
However Maitre, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches a value for a light reflection factor ρV ([0124], “The “mean light reflection factor,” noted R.sub.v, is such as defined in the ISO 13666:1998 Standard, and measured in accordance with the ISO 8980-4 Standard”) as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% ([0125], “The mean light reflection factor R.sub.v of the face of the lens coated by an anti-reflection coating according to the invention is preferably lower than 2.5% (per face), preferably lower than 2%”).
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 Nomura with the value for a light reflection factor ρV as determined and defined according to Sec. 4.2 of EN ISO 8980-4:2006 is less than 2.5% as taught by Maitre, for the purpose of improving the antireflection properties of the final article ([0032]).
Modified Nomura does not specifically disclose the method comprising: depositing the outermost stack layer by co-evaporating the silver (Ag) and silicon-dioxide (SiO2) in an oxygen-ion-atmosphere, wherein proportions of the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) and the oxygen-ions are set so that silver (Ag) clusters are formed in a SiO2-matrix.
However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches the method comprising: depositing the outermost stack layer by co-evaporating the silver (Ag) ([0041], “the anti-fogging film 14 may have an antibacterial functional material if necessary. Examples of antibacterial materials include mercury, silver”) and silicon-dioxide (SiO2) ([0045], “anti-fogging film 14 made of silicon oxide (silicon oxide film (SiONER)), it is preferable to use a silicon oxide film with an O/Si ratio of 1.8 or higher”) in an oxygen-ion-atmosphere ([0014], “melts/evaporates a film forming material by EB heating and forms an anti-fogging film 14 made of inorganic oxide”), wherein proportions of the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) and the oxygen-ions are set so that silver (Ag) clusters are formed in a SiO2-matrix ([0041], “metals or metal ions such as silver, copper, zinc, and nickel, supported on silicate-based carriers”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the method comprising: depositing the outermost stack layer by co-evaporating the silver (Ag) and silicon-dioxide (SiO2) in an oxygen-ion-atmosphere, wherein proportions of the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) and the oxygen-ions are set so that silver (Ag) clusters are formed in a SiO2-matrix as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of introducing antibacterial functions ([0041]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 25 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) are co-deposited using two evaporation sources in a vacuum chamber simultaneously, wherein the two evaporation sources are an electron beam gun for the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) and a thermal evaporator for the silver (Ag).
However Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches wherein the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) are co-deposited using two evaporation sources in a vacuum chamber simultaneously (Figs. 1-4), wherein the two evaporation sources are an electron beam gun for the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) ([0051], “electron gun 22 was activated to heat the silicon oxide to approximately 2000°C using an electron beam (EB) and begin melting it”) and a thermal evaporator for the silver (Ag) ([0038], “resistance heating or induction heating, may be used”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre further in view of Takahashi with the wherein the silver (Ag) and the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) are co-deposited using two evaporation sources in a vacuum chamber simultaneously, wherein the two evaporation sources are an electron beam gun for the silicon-dioxide (SiO2) and a thermal evaporator for the silver (Ag) as taught by Takahashi, for the purpose of introducing antibacterial functions ([0041]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314), further in view of Takahashi (JP2008274409A, as evidenced by the machine translation) and Schiavoni (US 2020/0012180).
Regarding claim 28, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 25 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: diffusing the silver (Ag) into stack layers other than the outermost stack layer.
However Schiavoni, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches further comprising: diffusing the silver (Ag) into stack layers other than the outermost stack layer ([0059], “in particular functional layers based on silver or on a metal alloy containing silver, and of “(n+1)” coatings for controlling the reflection of the functional layers”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre further in view of Takahashi with the further comprising: diffusing the silver (Ag) into stack layers other than the outermost stack layer as taught by Schiavoni, for the purpose of adding low-emissivity properties ([0059]).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2021/0325693) in view of Maitre (US 2020/0150314), further in view of Altheimer (US 2015/0002810).
Regarding claim 34, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose a computer-readable non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens.
However Altheimer, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches a computer-readable non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens ([0001], “a corresponding computer program product for calculating (optimizing) and producing a spectacle lens by taking into account higher-order aberrations both of the eye and of the spectacle lens”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the computer-readable non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of producing a spectacle lens ([0001]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Nomura teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose a computer program stored on a non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens.
However Altheimer, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical element, teaches a computer program stored on a non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens ([0001], “a corresponding computer program product for calculating (optimizing) and producing a spectacle lens by taking into account higher-order aberrations both of the eye and of the spectacle lens”).
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 Nomura in view of Maitre with the computer program stored on a non-transitory data storage carrier comprising a spectacle lens in the form of computer-readable instructions for the production of the spectacle lens as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of producing a spectacle lens ([0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein at least one of the at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer containing the silver (Ag) is a TiO2-matrix containing the silver (Ag).
Claim 18 is objected to due to dependency.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein at least one of the stack layers in addition to the outermost stack layer containing the silver (Ag) is a SiO2-layer.
Claims 20-21 are objected to due to dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Borrelli (US 2015/0291470), Blair (US 2015/0168616), Oku (US 5,807,641) teach A spectacle lens comprising: (i) an anti-reflective coating reducing light reflected from a surface of the anti-reflective coating or (ii) a mirror coating, the anti-reflective coating or the mirror coating including a stack of a plurality of stack layers, the stack having an outermost stack layer, the outermost stack layer containing a plurality of separated silver (Ag) atoms and/or a plurality of silver (Ag) clusters in a SiO2-matrix.
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