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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nishimoto et al. (US Pub. 20100177395) in view of Vecchione et al. (US Pub. 20220403065, Vecchione).
As per claim 1, Nishimoto teaches (in figure 1) a miniature multifunctional VR resin lens, comprising a lens base (lens substrate 1), wherein the lens base (lens substrate 1) is a multifunctional resin base, a multifunctional hard layer (hard coating layer 2 and primer layer see paragraph 49) is disposed on the lens base (lens substrate 1), and a multifunctional film layer (antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4) is disposed on the multifunctional hard layer (hard coating layer 2 and primer layer see paragraph 49); wherein the lens base (lens substrate 1) is made of any one of acrylate, polyurethane, polycarbonate, and allyl carbonate (paragraph 46); the multifunctional hard layer (hard coating layer 2 and primer layer see paragraph 49) comprises one or more of an anti-scratch layer, an anti-impact layer, and a dyeable hardened layer (paragraph 47); the multifunctional film layer (antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4) comprises any one of a light anti-reflection film, an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film (paragraphs 51 and 54); the anti-electromagnetic radiation film in the multifunctional film layer (antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4) is made of an indium tin oxide layer, the waterproof film in the multifunctional film layer (antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4) is made of fluoride, and the anti-fog film in the multifunctional film layer (antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4) is made of a hydrophilic material (paragraph 54) (it is noted that the claim does not require the multifunctional film layer to include all of a light anti-reflection film, an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film as the claim recites that the multifunctional film layer comprises any one of a light anti-reflection film, an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film).
Nishimoto does not teach that the multifunctional hard has multiple functions including any one or more of an anti-blue light performance, a color change performance, and a dyeability performance.
However, Vecchione teaches forming a hard coat layer to include a photochromic compound (paragraphs 248-249).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hard coat layer in Nishimoto to include a photochromic compound as taught by Vecchione in order to provide automatic tinting to the lens.
As per claim 7, Nishimoto teaches that the lens base (lens substrate 1) is one of a single vision lens or an astigmatic lens (paragraphs 14, 46, and 163).
Nishimoto does not specifically teach that a single face area of a light transmitting face of the lens base ranges from 251
m
m
2
to 1260
m
m
2
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form a single face area of a light transmitting face of the lens base to be between 251
m
m
2
and 1260
m
m
2
, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As per claims 8 and 9, Nishimoto in view of Vecchione teaches a preparation method of the miniature multifunctional VR resin lens of claim 1, wherein the preparation method comprises: S1. forming a lens base (lens substrate 1) S2. surface treatment (applying hard coating layer 2 and primer layer in Nishimoto modified to include a photochromic compound as taught by Vecchione see paragraphs 49 and 50 in Nishimoto and paragraphs 248-249 in Vecchione); and S3. vacuum plating (vacuum plating antireflection layer 3 and hydrophilic antifogging film 4, see paragraphs 52 and 55), wherein: S2. surface treatment: performing surface hardening treatment on the lens base (lens substrate 1) obtained in step S1 to obtain the multifunctional hard layer (hard coating layer 2 and primer layer in Nishimoto modified to include a photochromic compound as taught by Vecchione) (see paragraphs 49-50 and 57-58 in Nishimoto and paragraphs 248-249 in Vecchione); and S3. vacuum plating: vacuum-plating the multifunctional hard layer (hard coating layer 2 and primer layer in Nishimoto modified to include a photochromic compound as taught by Vecchione) obtained in step S2 with any one or more of a light anti-reflection layer, an indium tin oxide layer, a fluoride layer, and a hydrophilic material to obtain the light anti-reflection film, the anti- electromagnetic radiation film, the waterproof film, and the anti-fog film (see paragraphs 52 and 55 in Nishimoto).
Nishimoto does not specifically teach that the preparation method of the miniature multifunctional VR resin lens includes S1. material mixing and curing: selecting any one of acrylate, polyurethane, polycarbonate, and allyl carbonate as a raw material, adding an aid, an initiator, and an anti-blue light toner for uniform mixing and performing heating and insulation curing in a curing oven to obtain the lens base.
However, Vecchione teaches forming a lens base by material mixing and curing (paragraphs 301 and 307); selecting any one of acrylate, polyurethane, polycarbonate, and allyl carbonate as a raw material (A, see paragraphs 41 and 89), adding an aid (C, see paragraph 43), an initiator (E, see paragraph 45), and an anti-blue light toner (D, see paragraph 44) for uniform mixing, and performing heating and insulation curing in a curing oven to obtain the lens base (see paragraphs 301 and 307) in order to provide a lens with superior effect of blocking harmful ultraviolet light and blue light, has excellent colorless, transparent, external appearance (paragraph 241).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lens base of Nishimoto in the manner as suggested by Vecchione in order to provide a lens with superior effect of blocking harmful ultraviolet light and blue light, has excellent colorless, transparent, external appearance (paragraph 241).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. (US Pub. 20100177395) and Vecchione et al. (US Pub. 20220403065, Vecchione) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of He et al. (CN218037408U, with reference made to provided machine translation, He).
As per claim 5, Nishimoto does not teach that a visible light transmittance of the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer is 90%-99%.
However, He teaches (in figure 1) forming an anti-reflection film (anti-reflection layer 4) to have a visible light transmittance of 90%-99% (paragraph 1 on page 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the anti-reflection layer in Nishimoto to have a visible light transmittance of 90%-99% as suggested by He.
The motivation would have been to ensure high transmittance of the lens.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. (US Pub. 20100177395) and Vecchione et al. (US Pub. 20220403065, Vecchione) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Melzig et al. (US Pub. 20060011898, Melzig).
As per claim 11, Nishimoto in view of Vecchione teaches that the anti-blue light performance comprises a light transmittance of 0-5% for visible light at wavelengths of 380 nm-410 nm (paragraph 242 and 308 in Vecchione).
Nishimoto in view of Vecchione does not teach that the color change performance comprises changing the base of the VR resin lens into any one of a red base, an orange base, a yellow base, a green base, a cyan base, a blue base, a purple base, a gray base, and a brown.
However, Melzig teaches providing a photochromic dye in the resin of a lens in order to provide a natural color gray photochromic resin (see paragraphs 30, 35, and 38) in order to provide automatic darkening in bright conditions and provide a quasi-stead-state condition over an extended period of time (paragraphs 30 and 31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the photochromic dye from Melzig in the lens base of Nishimoto in view of Vecchione in order to provide automatic darkening in bright conditions and provide a quasi-stead-state condition over an extended period of time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871