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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed May 28, 2026. Claims 2, 4, and 7 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 6 and 8-11 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that previously cited prior art references fail to disclose “the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of a color change base and a dyeable base.” However, it is noted that the limitation requires “wherein the lens base is a multifunctional resin base, the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base”. Thus, the language requires “any one or more” and is not required to have a color change base and a dyeable base to satisfy the claim language. As set forth below and in the previously mailed office action, Mai et al. discloses wherein the lens base 1 (denoted “eyeglass lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0019] and Figure 1a) is a multifunctional resin base (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0025]-[0026] for resin base), the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base (see e.g. Figure 1a and paragraph [0019] for incorporation of blue light blocking material into the base).
Second, applicant argues that the previously cited prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the multifunctional film layer (3) comprises an anti-electromagnetic radiation film.” However, it is noted that the claim requires “wherein the multifunctional film layer comprises any one or more of a light anti-reflection film, an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film.” Thus, the language requires “any one or more” and is not required to have “an anti-electromagnetic radiation film” to satisfy the claim language. As set forth below and in the previously mailed office action, Kalyankar et al. discloses wherein the multifunctional film layer 82 and/or 84 comprises any one or more of a light anti-reflection film (see e.g. paragraph [0052] for antireflective coating), an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film (see e.g. paragraph [0053]).
Third, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer (3) has a visible light transmittance of not less than 96.9%.” However, as set forth below, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer (3) has a visible light transmittance of not less than 96.9%, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
In response to applicant's argument that the previously applied prior art is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applicant argues that the rejections as set forth in the previous office action combine “solutions from five completely different technical fields” including head-mounted devices, AR waveguides, anti-glue light materials, laser marking and 3D printing and bonding. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion.
Specifically, applicant argues that the Kalyankar et al. and Han are “different” and have “combinations obstacles.” However, Kalyankar et al. discloses a head-mounted device and Han is drawn to a waveguide system that includes a myopia adjusting element. One of ordinary skill would recognize that correcting a user’s nearsightedness is applicable to a head mounted device worn by a user.
Applicant further argues that the Ito reference used to disclose anti-scratch properties is drawn to laser printing marking technology and not applicable to the present invention or combinable with the cited references. However, it is noted that the anti-scratch properties used in various optical applications may be applied to a head mounted device.
Applicant further argues that the Jenkins reference, used to disclose optically clear adhesive to join optical layers, solves a different technical problem, namely warping of lenses in the 3D printing field. However, it is noted that using optically clear adhesive is a well known solution in the field of optics for cementing optical layers together. Further, it is noted that both references are within the field of optics and lens systems.
Finally, applicant argues that the Han reference has a “different hierarchical structure” from the instant claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that Han may not be combined with Kalyankar et al., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyankar et al. (US 2024/0402394 A1) in view of Han (CN 112147786) and further in view of Mai et al. (US 2021/0223574 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kalyankar et al. discloses a multifunctional resin lens 66 (denoted “supplemental lens”, see e.g. Figures 4-5 and paragraph [0049]) for AR glasses (see e.g. paragraph [0027] for AR) capable of correcting vision (see e.g. paragraph [0049] where it is noted lens 66 may match a user’s prescription), comprising (see e.g. Figures 4-5):
a lens base 78 (denoted “substrate”, see e.g. Figure 5 and paragraph [0051]),
wherein multifunctional hard layers 80 (denoted “hard coats”, see e.g. Figure 5 and paragraph [0051]) are disposed on both upper and lower end faces of the lens base 78 (see e.g. Figure 5 and note layer 80 is on both sides of element 78);
a multifunctional film layer 82 and/or 84 (see e.g. Figure 5 and paragraphs [0052]-[0053] for antireflection coatings 82 and environmental layers 84) is disposed on the other side of each of the multifunctional hard layers 80 (see e.g. Figure 5 and note layers 82 and 84 are disposed layers 80);
the lens 66 consisting of the lens base 78, the multifunctional hard layers 80, and the multifunctional film layers 82 and/or 84 is a structure having a flat upper end face and a curved lower end face (see e.g. Figure 5 where one side of the lens 66 is flat and the other is curved),
a material of the lens base 78 includes any one of acrylate, polyurethane, polycarbonate, and allyl carbonate (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for polycarbonate).
wherein the multifunctional film layer 82 and/or 84 comprises any one or more of a light anti-reflection film (see e.g. paragraph [0052] for antireflective coating), an anti-electromagnetic radiation film, a waterproof film, and an anti-fog film (see e.g. paragraph [0053]).
Kalyankar et al. fails to disclose
an optical waveguide sheet is disposed on the upper multifunctional film layer of the lens base,
wherein the lens base is a multifunctional resin base, the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base,
wherein the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer (3) has a visible light transmittance of not less than 96.9%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer (3) has a visible light transmittance of not less than 96.9%, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kalyankar et al. with wherein the light anti-reflection film in the multifunctional film layer (3) has a visible light transmittance of not less than 96.9%.
Optimizing the visible light transmittance would result in glasses that allow a high quality set of glasses that allows most of the light through.
Kalyankar et al. fails to disclose
an optical waveguide sheet is disposed on the upper multifunctional film layer of the lens base,
wherein the lens base is a multifunctional resin base, the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base.
However, Han discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
an optical waveguide sheet 2 (denoted “waveguide substrate”, see e.g. page 4, fifth full paragraph and Figure 1) is disposed on the upper portion of the lens base 5 (denoted “myopia adjusting optical element”, see e.g. page 4, fifth full paragraph and Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Han, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kalyankar et al. with an optical waveguide sheet is disposed on the upper multifunctional film layer of the lens base.
Combining the lens structure integrally with a waveguide structure allows for the augmented reality system to be reduced in size (see e.g. abstract of Han).
Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, fails to disclose
wherein the lens base is a multifunctional resin base, the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base,
However, Mai et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1a):
wherein the lens base 1 (denoted “eyeglass lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0019] and Figure 1a) is a multifunctional resin base (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0025]-[0026] for resin base), the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base (see e.g. Figure 1a and paragraph [0019] for incorporation of blue light blocking material into the base).
Given the teachings of Mai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, with wherein the lens base is a multifunctional resin base, the multifunctional resin base comprises any one or more of an anti-blue light base, a color change base, a dyeable base, and an anti-infrared light base.
Providing blue light blocking capability to the lens base prevents unwanted blue light from reaching the user.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyankar et al. (US 2024/0402394 A1) in view of Han (CN 112147786) in view of Mai et al. (US 2021/0223574 A1) and further in view of Ito et al. (US 2005/0046792 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the multifunctional hard layers comprises one or more of an anti-scratch hardened layer, an anti-impact hardened layer, and a dyeable hardened layer.
However, Ito et al. discloses
wherein the multifunctional hard layers comprises one or more of an anti-scratch hardened layer, an anti-impact hardened layer, and a dyeable hardened layer (see e.g. paragraphs [0103] and [0127] for anti-scratch properties).
Given the teachings of Ito et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, with wherein the multifunctional hard layers comprises one or more of an anti-scratch hardened layer, an anti-impact hardened layer, and a dyeable hardened layer.
Providing a hard coating layer that reduced scratches would prevent unwanted damage that may be detrimental to a viewer’s vision.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyankar et al. (US 2024/0402394 A1) in view of Han (CN 112147786) in view of Mai et al. (US 2021/0223574 A1) and further in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2024/0369839 A1).
In regard to claim 5¸ Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical waveguide sheet is adhered using an OCA, and an adhesive thickness of the optical waveguide sheet is less than 200 microns.
However, Jenkins et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
wherein the optical waveguide sheet 404 (denoted “substrate”, see e.g. paragraph [0033]) is adhered using an OCA 406 (see e.g. paragraph [0033]), and an adhesive thickness of the optical waveguide sheet is less than 200 microns (see e.g. paragraph [0035] for thickness of 50-100 microns, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
Given the teachings of Jenkins et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kalyankar et al., in view of Han, with wherein the optical waveguide sheet is adhered using an OCA, and an adhesive thickness of the optical waveguide sheet is less than 200 microns.
Providing an optically clear adhesive (OSA) as the adhesive for adhering the materials would prevent unwanted detrimental optical effects due to the high clarity of those materials.
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights