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 Invention I in the reply filed on 05 February 2026 is not acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "Applicant respectfully submits that there was no undue burden of examining the claims of group I,II, and III together". This is not found persuasive because, as indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which they base their conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Furthermore, and in response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant respectfully submits that there was no undue burden of examining the claims of group I,II, and III together," the Examiner traverses. Per the Requirement for Restriction/Election, dated 05 December 2025, “Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above (see pages 2 and 3 in Requirement for Restriction/Election, dated 05 December 2025) and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification (e.g., Claims 1-12 classified in G02B 1/00 and B32B 7/023, Claims 13-17 classified in G02B 5/223, Claims 18-20 classified in G01J 3/46, etc.); (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter (e.g., contradicting positive vs. negative a-value shifts, requiring an optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230]) vs. no optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230])s, etc.); (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; e.g., searching exclusively within references of a transmissive optical device (lens 502; [0230]) requiring an optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230]) and a positive a-value double-pass shift will not yield results for a transmissive optical device (lens 502; [0230]) comprising no optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230])s while requiring a negative a-value double-pass shift, vice versa, and for other mutually exclusive combinations of absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) configurations, etc.); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 05 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: transmissive optical device, optical elements, optical film, an a-value of a . This is not an exhaustive list.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the transmissive optical device, optical elements, absorptive dye, optical film, an a-value of a double-pass white point of the optical device, an a-value of a single-pass white point of the device, photochromic dye, optical film comprises at least one of a reflective coating, hard coating, anti-scratch coating, anti-fog coating, hydrophobic coating, anti-reflective coating and a polarizer film, optical element comprises at least one of a plastic material and glass material, and absorptive dye comprises a cyanine, rhodamine, coumarin, squarylium, BODIPY, spirooxazine or naphthopyran chemical structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 21-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 21-27 recite the limitations "the optical device" and "the device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, for Claims 1 and 24 recite “a transmissive optical device.”
With respect to Claim 8, the sentences recite “wherein the at least one absorptive dye comprises a photochromic dye capable of activation by ultraviolet (UV) radiation” and it is unclear how the phrase “capable of” followed by functional language should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations. “Capable of” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the capability and/or claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the transmissive optical device. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between activation by ultraviolet (UV) radiation capability and the claimed invention. See 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation for further details.
With respect to Claims 14-15, 22, and 26-27, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur, and thus, e.g., “the photochromic dye comprises a peak absorbance between 380 nm and 540 nm when activated by UV radiation” and “the at least one absorptive dye has a range of concentrations from 0.1 mg to 1000 mg per pound when incorporated in optical material” do not recite sufficient structure for performing the function(s) and are merely an optional limitation since the condition(s) precedent is not met. See MPEP § 2111.04 (II). See 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation for further details.
Examiner reminds the applicant that claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
With respect to Claim 24, the limitation(s) recite “a a-value,” which is grammatically incorrect.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP § 2173.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are: “wherein the at least one absorptive dye comprises a photochromic dye capable of activation by ultraviolet (UV) radiation” in Claim 8, “the two or more optical elements further create a lightness-independent red-green color difference increase” in Claim 11, “wherein the two or more optical elements further create a red-green lightness-difference” in Claim 12, “between 380 nm and 540 nm when activated by UV radiation” in Claims 14 and 27, “between 541 nm and 780 nm when activated by UV radiation” in Claims 15 and 26, “and a peak absorbance of at least 30% (absolute), is activated by ultraviolet (UV) radiation” in Claim 21, and “wherein the at least one absorptive dye has a range of concentrations from 0.1 mg to 1000 mg per pound when incorporated in optical material” in Claim 22.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12, 14-15, and 21-27 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.
With respect to Claims 1 and 24, the recitation “two or more optical elements comprising at least one absorptive dye and at least one optical film” and “three or more optical elements comprising at least two absorptive dyes and at least one optical film” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how these limitations should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations. In the instant case, “two/three or more optical elements comprising at least one/two absorptive dye and at least one optical film” is unclear, for it is not clear whether each optical element must include both the one/two dye(s) and the film or whether the transmissive optical device collectively must include at least one/two absorptive dye element(s) and one optical film element. Furthermore, “a peak absorbance of at least 30% absolute” does not specify whether this refers to percent absorption, percent reduction from baseline, optical density equivalent, transmission minimum, etc. Also, “double/single-pass white point” does not define the optical path geometry, any reflection surfaces, or even the measurement configuration. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope, these claim limitations are being rejected under § 112(b) indefiniteness.
With respect to Claims 11 and 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 11 recites the broad recitation "between -80% and 120%", and the claim also recites "excluding from -2% to 2%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 12 recites the broad recitation "between -5.0 and 5.0", and the claim also recites "excluding from -0.1 to 0.1" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With respect to Claim 22, the term “per pound” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “per pound” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not specify what the “per pound” refers to, for it could be per pound of the optical material, per pound, of the total transmissive optical device, per pound of an optical layer, per pound of finished lens weight, etc. Since there is no identification of the reference mass or specific optical material into which the dye is incorporated, the concentration boundary is unclear, and thus, the scope of the claim is ambiguous and cannot be reasonably ascertained by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The transmissive optical device, absorptive dye, range of concentrations, and optical material have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “per pound.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a transmissive optical device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-15, 21-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCabe et al. US 20160070119 A1 (herein after McCabe); See also Exciton ABS 574 Visible Narrow Band Absorber.
With respect to Claim 1, McCabe discloses a transmissive optical device (lens 502; [0230]), the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) comprising:
two or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers and polymeric layers; [0230]) comprising at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) and at least one optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230]), the two or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers and polymeric layers; [0230]) are configured to define a transmission spectrum (base layer 508 has spectral profile, polymeric layer 510, 512 has spectral profile; [0237], [0247]) of the optical device (lens 502; [0230]), the transmission spectrum (base layer 508 has spectral profile, polymeric layer 510, 512 has spectral profile; [0237], [0247]) comprising at least one stop-band (optical filter, includes one or more chroma enhancement dyes that provide absorptance peaks with relatively high attenuation factor, base layer 508 includes blue, green, yellow, and red chroma enhancement dyes; [0216], [0233-239]) having a peak absorbance wavelength between 560 nm and 610 nm inclusive (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm, red between 600 nm and 680 nm; [0219-221]), a full-width-at-half-maximum of at least 10 nm (FWHM values of plurality of absorptance peaks can be greater than about 20 nm; [0172], [0219-221]), and a peak absorbance of at least 30% absolute (attenuation factor of each absorptance peak having maximum absorptance over a certain absorptance threshold in optical filter meets attenuation factor criteria of absorptance threshold being between 0.5 and 1; [0158], [0219-221]), and
in a 1976 CIE LAB color space (organic dyes supplied by Exciton of Dayton, Ohio, wherein an approximated spectral absorptance profile of a polycarbonate lens with an optical filter incorporates yellow chroma enhancement dye such as Exciton ABS 574; [0170], [0220]; fig. 31, Exciton ABS 574 has narrow absorption peak at 574 nm within the claimed 560-610 nm range; 15.5 nm FWHM; see properties chart below; [0170], [0220]), an a-value of a double-pass white point of the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) is at least 1 unit more than an a-value of a single-pass white point (at practical optical densities e.g., ≥ ≈ 0.35; see spectrum polycarbonate graph below, double-pass transmission squares the absorption at the peak, and thus, deepens the yellow-green notch while preserving long-wavelength red/magenta-like transmission; fig. 31, see spectrum polycarbonate graph below, this selectively increases long-wavelength energy relative to mid-wavelength energy, and thus, increases the CIE 1976 LAB a-value by at least 1 unit under double-pass illumination, see properties chart below) of the device (lens 502; [0230]), illuminated by one or more illuminants selected from a set of three CIE illuminants of D65, F2 and F11 (each of the chromaticity diagrams provided in the disclosure showing the chromaticity of an associated filter or lens, where the chromaticity is calculated using CIE illuminant D65; [0153]; figs. 31, 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 2, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 570 nm (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 3, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 575 nm (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 4, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 580 nm (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 5, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 585 nm (yellow chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 580 nm and about 600 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 6, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 590 nm (yellow chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 580 nm and about 600 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 7, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance at approximately 595 nm (yellow chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 580 nm and about 600 nm; [0219-221]).
With respect to Claim 8, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a photochromic dye (elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508; [0233]) capable of activation by ultraviolet (UV) radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
With respect to Claim 9, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230]) comprises at least one of a reflective coating, hard coating, anti-scratch coating, anti-fog coating, hydrophobic coating, anti-reflective coating and a polarizer film (one or more polymeric layers 510, 512, can provide additional functionality such as anti-reflection functionality, anti-fog functionality, scratch resistance, mechanical durability, hydrophobic functionality, or reflective functionality; [0230]).
With respect to Claim 10, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein at least one optical element (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers and polymeric layers; [0230]) comprises at least one of a plastic material and a glass material (polymeric layers 510, 512 wherein first polymeric layer 510 and second polymeric layer 512 each made of different materials, such as different thermoplastic resins; [0246]).
With respect to Claim 11, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the two or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers and polymeric layers; [0230]) further create a lightness-independent red-green color difference increase between -80% and 120%, excluding from -2% to 2%, for red and green Munsell colors seen (Exciton ABS 574 dye selectively removes narrow 574 nm band that affects green reflectance more than red reflectance, and thus, increases red-green chromatic separation in a lightness-independent manner within claimed percentage range; [0220]; figs. 31, 33, see properties chart and spectrum polycarbonate graph in § 102 rejection for Claim 1) through the optical device (lens 502; [0230]), illuminated by one or more illuminants selected from the set of three CIE illuminants of D65, F2 and F11 (each of the chromaticity diagrams provided in the disclosure showing the chromaticity of an associated filter or lens, where the chromaticity is calculated using CIE illuminant D65; [0153]; figs. 31, 33).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 12, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the two or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers and polymeric layers; [0230]) further create a red-green lightness-difference for red and green Munsell colors between -5.0 and 5.0, excluding from -0.1 to 0.1 (Exciton ABS 574 dye has narrow 15.5 nm absorption band centered at 574 nm, so it selectively alters chromatic content without broadly suppressing overall luminance, and thus, a small non-zero red-green lightness difference remains within -5.0 to 5.0 and outside -0.1 to 0.1 for red and green Munsell samples; [0220]; figs. 31, 33, see properties chart and spectrum polycarbonate graph in § 102 rejection for Claim 1), illuminated by one or more illuminants selected from the set of three CIE illuminants of D65, F2 and F11 (each of the chromaticity diagrams provided in the disclosure showing the chromaticity of an associated filter or lens, where the chromaticity is calculated using CIE illuminant D65; [0153]; figs. 31, 33).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 14, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 8 wherein the photochromic dye (elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508; [0233]) comprises a peak absorbance between 380 nm and 540 nm (violet chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 390 nm and about 440 nm, blue chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 440 nm and about 490 nm, green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm; [0217-221]) when activated by UV radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
With respect to Claim 15, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 8 wherein the photochromic dye (elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508; [0233]) comprises a peak absorbance between 541 nm and 780 nm (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm, red between 600 nm and 680 nm; [0219-221]) when activated by UV radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
With respect to Claim 21, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one stop-band (optical filter, includes one or more chroma enhancement dyes that provide absorptance peaks with relatively high attenuation factor, base layer 508 includes blue, green, yellow, and red chroma enhancement dyes; [0216], [0233-239]) in the transmission spectrum (e.g., a yellow chroma enhancement dye, when incorporated into an optical filter, is configured to produce absorptance peak with bandwidth greater than or equal to about 15 nm or 20 nm, e.g., Exciton ABS 574 dye, and a dye that has one or more relatively sharp absorptance peaks within yellow portion of spectrum; [0220]) having a peak absorbance wavelength between 560 nm and 610 nm (inclusive) (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm, red between 600 nm and 680 nm; [0219-221]), a full-width-at-half-maximum of at least 10 nm (FWHM values of plurality of absorptance peaks can be greater than about 20 nm; [0172], [0219-221]), and a peak absorbance of at least 30% (absolute) (attenuation factor of each absorptance peak having maximum absorptance over a certain absorptance threshold in optical filter meets attenuation factor criteria of absorptance threshold being between 0.5 and 1; [0158], [0219-221]), is activated by ultraviolet (UV) radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
With respect to Claim 22, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 wherein the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) has a range of concentrations from 0.1 mg to 1000 mg per pound (e.g., 2.8 gm/L toluene and 0.467 gm/L acetone convert to 1270.07 mg/lb toluene and 211.83 mg/lb acetone for yellow chroma enhancement dye, 0.3 gm/L cyclohexane and 0.15 gm/L methyl ethyl ketone covert to 174.55 mg/lb cyclohexane and 68.04 mg/lb methyl ethyl ketone for green chroma enhancement dye; table c; [0220]; figs. 31, 33, see properties chart and spectrum polycarbonate graph in § 102 rejection for Claim 1) when incorporated in optical material (one or more dyes incorporated within the lens material by a dyeing process or another process; [0214]).
With respect to Claim 24, McCabe discloses a transmissive optical device (lens 502; [0230]), the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) comprising:
three or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers, polymeric layers, and lens coatings; [0230]) comprising at least two absorptive dyes (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) and at least one optical film (polymeric layers 510, 512; [0230]), the three or more optical elements (layers in laminate 506 comprising optical base layers, polymeric layers, and lens coatings; [0230]) are configured to define a transmission spectrum (e.g., base layer 508 has spectral profile, polymeric layer 510, 512 has spectral profile, lens coating 518, 520 has spectral profile; [0237], [0247], [0261]) of the optical device (lens 502; [0230]), the transmission spectrum (e.g., base layer 508 has spectral profile, polymeric layer 510, 512 has spectral profile, lens coating 518, 520 has spectral profile; [0237], [0247], [0261]) comprising at least one stop-band (optical filter, includes one or more chroma enhancement dyes that provide absorptance peaks with relatively high attenuation factor, base layer 508 includes blue, green, yellow, and red chroma enhancement dyes; [0216], [0233-239]) having a peak absorbance wavelength between 560 nm and 610 nm inclusive (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm, red between 600 nm and 680 nm; [0219-221]), a full-width-at-half-maximum of at least 10 nm (FWHM values of plurality of absorptance peaks can be greater than about 20 nm; [0172], [0219-221]), and a peak absorbance of at least 30% absolute (attenuation factor of each absorptance peak having maximum absorptance over a certain absorptance threshold in optical filter meets attenuation factor criteria of absorptance threshold being between 0.5 and 1; [0158], [0219-221]), and
in a 1976 CIE LAB color space (organic dyes supplied by Exciton of Dayton, Ohio, wherein an approximated spectral absorptance profile of a polycarbonate lens with an optical filter incorporates yellow chroma enhancement dye such as Exciton ABS 574; [0170], [0220]; fig. 31, Exciton ABS 574 has narrow absorption peak at 574 nm within the claimed 560-610 nm range; 15.5 nm FWHM; see properties chart below; [0170], [0220]), a a-value of a double-pass white point of the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) is at least 1 unit more than a a-value of a single-pass white point (at practical optical densities e.g., ≥ ≈ 0.35; see spectrum polycarbonate graph below, double-pass transmission squares the absorption at the peak, and thus, deepens the yellow-green notch while preserving long-wavelength red/magenta-like transmission; fig. 31, see spectrum polycarbonate graph below, this selectively increases long-wavelength energy relative to mid-wavelength energy, and thus, increases the CIE 1976 LAB a-value by at least 1 unit under double-pass illumination, see properties chart below) of the device (lens 502; [0230]), illuminated by one or more illuminants selected from a set of three CIE illuminants of D65, F2 and F11 (each of the chromaticity diagrams provided in the disclosure showing the chromaticity of an associated filter or lens, where the chromaticity is calculated using CIE illuminant D65; [0153]; figs. 31, 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 25, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 24 wherein the at least two absorptive dyes (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) are photochromic (one or more additional elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508 and integrally molded as part of lens 502; [0233]) absorptive dyes (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]).
With respect to Claim 26, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 25 wherein at least one of the at least two photochromic (one or more additional elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508 and integrally molded as part of lens 502; [0233]) absorptive dyes (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance between 541 nm and 780 nm (green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm, yellow between 580 nm and 600 nm, red between 600 nm and 680 nm; [0219-221]) when activated by UV radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
With respect to Claim 27, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 25 wherein at least one of the at least two photochromic (one or more additional elements such as photochromic elements, can be incorporated into base layer 508 and integrally molded as part of lens 502; [0233]) absorptive dyes (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]) comprises a peak absorbance between 380 nm and 540 nm (violet chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 390 nm and about 440 nm, blue chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 440 nm and about 490 nm, green chroma enhancement dyes having absorptance peak with wavelength between about 540 nm and about 580 nm; [0217-221]) when activated by UV radiation (UV absorbing agents can be disposed in any lens component or combination of lens components; [0129]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. US 20160070119 A1 (herein after McCabe); See also Exciton ABS 574 Visible Narrow Band Absorber in view of Matsuo et al. JP WO2015020076 A1 (see machine translation; herein after "Matsuo").
With respect to Claim 23, McCabe discloses the optical device (lens 502; [0230]) of claim 1 and the at least one absorptive dye (base layer 508, one or more chroma enhancement dyes incorporated into base with desired absorptance profile; [0230-232], [0235-238]).
McCabe does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the at least one absorptive dye comprises a cyanine, rhodamine, coumarin, squarylium, BODIPY, spirooxazine or naphthopyran chemical structure.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuo teaches an optical member (lens 34 and optical element 100; [0017], [0068]; fig. 3) comprising an absorptive film (light-shielding film 20 within infrared wavelength band, and cover member main body 10 has infrared light reflection/absorption film; [0017]), wherein the absorptive film (e.g., light-shielding film 20 comprising plurality of inorganic or organic dyes with a resin; [0030]) comprises a combination of a red dye, a blue dye, a yellow dye and a green dye with a green dye having e.g., cyanine or squarylium chemical structure ([0033]) and a yellow dye having coumarin or rhodamine chemical structure ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lens of McCabe to include the technical feature of selecting absorptive dyes comprising a cyanine, rhodamine, coumarin, or squarylium chemical structure, for the purpose of easily adjusting the transmission wavelength band to be within the range of 600 nm to 700 nm and changing the mixing ratio of dyes to easily adjust transmittance, as taught by Matsuo ([0030]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) See also MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Larson US 20170235160 A1 discloses ophthalmic spectacle lenses, materials, and method substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 04 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872