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 .
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 3 and 13-20 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 3, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “droplet size” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a droplet size to 500nm is approximate. For examination purposes, any droplet size larger than 500nm is interpreted as being at least 500nm.
The term “approximately” in claim 13, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 13, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “sag” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a sag is approximate. For examination purposes, “sag of from approximately 2 mm to approximately 20 mm” is interpreted as “sag of from 2 mm to 20 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 13, line 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “thickness” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a thickness is approximate. For examination purposes, “a maximum thickness of less than approximately 40 mm” is interpreted as “a maximum thickness of less than 40 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 14, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a first radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a first radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 14, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a second radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a second radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 15, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “thickness variation” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a thickness variation is approximate. For examination purposes, “comprising a minimum thickness variation of at least approximately 2 mm” is interpreted as “comprising a minimum thickness variation of at least 2 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 18, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “transmissivity” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a transmissivity. For examination purposes, “at least approximately 90% and less than approximately 10% bulk haze” is interpreted as “at least 90% and less than 10% bulk haze”.
The term “approximately” in claim 19, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 19, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “sag” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a sag is approximate. For examination purposes, “sag of from approximately 2 mm to approximately 20 mm” is interpreted as “sag of from 2 mm to 20 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 19, line 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “thickness” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a thickness is approximate. For examination purposes, “a maximum thickness of less than approximately 40 mm” is interpreted as “a maximum thickness of less than 40 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 19, line 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “thickness variation” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a thickness variation is approximate. For examination purposes, “comprising a minimum thickness variation of at least approximately 2 mm” is interpreted as “comprising a minimum thickness variation of at least 2 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 20, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a first radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a first radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
The term “approximately” in claim 20, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 term “approximately” renders the parameter “radius of curvature” indefinite as one is unable to determine how close of a radius of curvature is approximate. For examination purposes, “a second radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm” is interpreted as “a second radius of curvature of less than 80 mm”.
Claims 16-17 are rejected due to dependency
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 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2017/0068105).
Regarding claim 13, Yun discloses a meniscus lens (Fig. 8, table 6, element 822) comprising a resinous compound (surface 6 corresponding to element 822 is made of Zenon E48R which is a resin) and further comprising:
a radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm (surfaces 6 and 7 in table 6 have radii of curvature of less than 80);
sag of from approximately 2 mm to approximately 20 mm (calculated from lens radius of curvature and thickness of surface 6, sag = 5.3478); and
a maximum thickness of less than approximately 40 mm (thickness of 5mm for surface 6).
Regarding claim 14, Yun further discloses comprising: a first surface (element 824, surface 6) having a first radius of curvature less than approximately 80 mm (surface 6 radius of curvature is -16.75009); and
a second surface (element 826, surface 7) having a second radius of curvature less than approximately 80 mm (surface 7 radius of curvature is -12.77019), wherein the first radius of curvature is unequal to the second radius of curvature (surfaces 6 and 7 have different radii of curvature).
Regarding claim 15, Yun further discloses comprising a minimum thickness variation of at least approximately 2 mm (as shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in table 6, with a difference in diameter and radius of curvature, a difference in thickness of the center and edge of the lens will be greater than 2mm).
Regarding claim 16, Yun further discloses wherein the meniscus lens comprises a converging lens (as shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in table 6, lens 822 is a converging lens).
Regarding claim 18, Yun further discloses comprising an optical transmissivity within a visible spectrum of at least approximately 90% and less than approximately 10% bulk haze (as disclosed in table 6, 822 is made of Zenon E48R, which has a transparency of approximately 90%).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (US 2023/0364871) in view of Weber (US 2007/0270062).
Regarding claim 1, Shan discloses a method ([0005], “a method of printing a thermoplastic film on an optical mold”) comprising:
providing an optical lens substrate (Figs. 1-7, element 404) having a non-planar deposition surface (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6, 404 has a curved surface);
depositing a resinous layer (608, 708) over the deposition surface to form a meniscus lens introducing a first resin composition into a mold ([0056], “a bottom film which has a second thermoplastic material 708”, thermoplastic is a type of resin material);
curing the first resin composition to form a lens template (S508, examiner interprets the decrease in temperature to be the curing process);
depositing a layer of a second resin (706) composition over a surface of the lens template to form a modified lens template ([0056], “a top film which has a first thermoplastic material 706”);
curing the layer of the second resin composition to form a hybrid lens (S512-S514, examiner interprets the decrease in temperature and annealing to be the curing process, the resulting first and one or more layers result in a hybrid lens of step S518).
Shan does not specifically disclose forming a lamination architecture comprising a carrier film and a multilayer optical film overlying a portion of the carrier film; and forming a laminated pancake optic by contacting a surface of the multilayer optical film with a surface of a transparent non-planar substrate.
However Weber, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches forming a lamination architecture (Figs. 1-3, element 4) comprising a carrier film (4a) and a multilayer optical film (4b) overlying a portion of the carrier film (as shown in Fig. 1A, 4b overlays 4a); and forming a laminated pancake optic by contacting a surface of the multilayer optical film (4b) with a surface of a transparent non-planar substrate (as shown in Fig. 1B, 4b comes into contact with substrate 1, [0342], “an optically clear, coated 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 method of Shan with the forming a lamination architecture comprising a carrier film and a multilayer optical film overlying a portion of the carrier film; and forming a laminated pancake optic by contacting a surface of the multilayer optical film with a surface of a transparent non-planar substrate as taught by Weber, for the purpose of improving the process of applying a coated film to a lens substrate ([0002]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Shan further discloses wherein the resinous layer (608) comprises an optically transparent compound ([0083], “wafer may have a high transparency, e.g., Tv% (D65)>80% at 1 mm, where Tv% (D65) may be the total visible light transmission”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Shan further discloses wherein a surface of the meniscus lens proximate to the substrate (Fig. 6, 608 has a surface proximate to 404) comprises a convex curvature (the surface of 608 proximate to 404 has a convex curvature) and a surface of the meniscus lens opposite to the substrate comprises concave curvature (the surface of 608 opposite to 404 has a concave curvature).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Shan further discloses wherein the meniscus lens comprises a diverging lens (as shown in Fig. 6 and disclosed in Table 6, the optical element has a negative spherical power).
Regarding claim 12, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Shan further discloses further comprising separating the meniscus lens from the deposition surface (S518, the lens is removed from the molding surface).
Claims 2-3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (US 2023/0364871) in view of Weber (US 2007/0270062), further in view of Weippert (US 2022/0347951).
Regarding claim 2, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the depositing comprises ink jet printing.
However Weippert, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the depositing comprises ink jet printing ([0017], “an inkjet method in which reactivity is transmitted between adjacently and/or mutually adjoiningly applied volume elements”).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein the depositing comprises ink jet printing as taught by Weippert, for the purpose of producing a spectacle lens with good imaging performance ([0016]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein during the depositing an average droplet size of a resinous compound forming the resinous layer is at least approximately 500 nm.
However Weippert, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein during the depositing an average droplet size of a resinous compound forming the resinous layer is at least approximately 500 nm ([0024], “The smallest sizes of volume elements of industrially utilizable inkjet print heads are currently about 1 pL, which corresponds to a diameter of the volume elements of 12.4 μm or an edge length of 10 μm”).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein during the depositing an average droplet size of a resinous compound forming the resinous layer is at least approximately 500 nm as taught by Weippert, for the purpose of producing a spectacle lens with good imaging performance ([0016]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the resinous layer comprises a UV curable compound.
However Weippert, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the resinous layer comprises a UV curable compound ([0117], “Printing inks comprising UV-curing (meth)acrylate monomers, on account of the low viscosity thereof of below 50 mPas (25° C.), usually have good printability by means of inkjet methods”).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein the resinous layer comprises a UV curable compound as taught by Weippert, for the purpose of having good printability ([0117]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising irradiating, for curing, the resinous layer.
However Weippert, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches further comprising irradiating, for curing, the resinous layer ([0121], “In addition to UV polymerization, thermal post-curing may be advisable if the level of polymerization after the UV irradiation is insufficient”).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the further comprising irradiating, for curing, the resinous layer as taught by Weippert, for the purpose of having good printability ([0117]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (US 2023/0364871) in view of Weber (US 2007/0270062), further in view of Chou (US 2014/0035995).
Regarding claim 4, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a distance between a printer head and the deposition surface during the depositing is at least approximately 5 mm.
However Chou, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a distance between a printer head and the deposition surface during the depositing is at least approximately 5 mm ([0111], “relatively large (>5 mm) standoff distance from the deposition head to the substrate allows accurate deposition on non-planar substrates, over existing structures and into channels”).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein a distance between a printer head and the deposition surface during the depositing is at least approximately 5 mm as taught by Chou, for the purpose of depositing on non-planar substrates ([0111]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan (US 2023/0364871) in view of Weber (US 2007/0270062), further in view of Meridiano (US 2024/0231124).
Regarding claim 7, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a surface of the meniscus lens proximate to the substrate comprises concave curvature and a surface of the meniscus lens opposite to the substrate comprises convex curvature.
However Meridiano, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a surface of the meniscus lens proximate to the substrate comprises concave curvature (Figs. 8-9 and 12, surface proximate to substrate 20 of Z1 is concave) and a surface of the meniscus lens opposite to the substrate comprises convex curvature (Figs. 8-9 and 12, surface opposite to substrate 20 of Z1 is convex).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein a surface of the meniscus lens proximate to the substrate comprises concave curvature and a surface of the meniscus lens opposite to the substrate comprises convex curvature as taught by Meridiano, for the purpose of changing a shape of a substrate ([0207]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Shan teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the meniscus lens comprises a converging lens.
However Meridiano, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the meniscus lens (Fig. 12, 30) comprises a converging lens (as shown in Fig. 12, 30 has a convex-concave shape and thus is converging).
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 method of Shan in view of Weber with the wherein the meniscus lens comprises a converging lens as taught by Meridiano, for the purpose of changing a shape of a substrate ([0207]).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2017/0068105) in view of Shan (US 2023/0364871).
Regarding claim 17, Yun discloses as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the meniscus lens comprises a diverging lens.
However Shan, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the meniscus lens (Fig. 6, element 608) comprises a diverging lens (as shown in Fig. 6 and disclosed in Table 6, the optical element has a negative spherical power).
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 meniscus lens of Yun with the wherein the meniscus lens comprises a diverging lens as taught by Shan, for the purpose of improving clarity and mechanical strength ([0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Yun discloses a meniscus lens (Fig. 8, table 6, element 822) comprising:
a radius of curvature of less than approximately 80 mm (surfaces 6 and 7 have radii of curvature of less than 80);
sag of from approximately 2 mm to approximately 20 mm (calculated from lens radius of curvature and thickness of surface 6, sag = 5.3478);
a maximum thickness of less than approximately 40 mm (thickness of 5mm for surface 6); and
a minimum thickness variation of at least approximately 2 mm (as shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in table 6, with a difference in diameter of 2.17 and radius of curvature of 3.98mm, a difference in thickness of the center and edge of the lens will be greater than 2mm).
Yun does not specifically disclose a 3D printed lens.
However Shan, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches a 3D printed lens ([0027], “a method of printing a thermoplastic film, e.g., a thin and curved wafer, on an optical mold for the ophthalmic lens application”).
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 meniscus lens of Yun with the 3D printed lens as taught by Shan, for the purpose of improving clarity and mechanical strength ([0027]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yun teaches as is set forth in claim 19 rejection above and Yun further discloses comprising:
a first surface (element 824, surface 6) having a first radius of curvature less than approximately 80 mm (surface 6 radius of curvature is -16.75009); and
a second surface (element 826, surface 7) having a second radius of curvature less than approximately 80 mm (surface 7 radius of curvature is -12.77019), wherein the first radius of curvature is unequal to the second radius of curvature (surfaces 6 and 7 have different radii of curvature).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Martin (US 2023/0305189), Pascual (US 2022/0118685), Reese (US 2025/0131148), Wu (US 2024/0094561), Nomura (US 2024/0077754), Brown (US 2022/0063182) teach a method comprising: providing an optical lens substrate having a non-planar deposition surface; depositing a resinous layer over the deposition surface to form a meniscus lens introducing a first resin composition into a mold.
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 30 March 2026
Prosecution Insights