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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/25 has been entered.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5055358 to Livingston in view US 5846649 to Knapp in view of US 5225057 to LeFebvre.
Regarding claims 1-10, 13: Livingston teaches a method for manufacturing an optical product comprising the following (abstract, Col. 3-4, Examples):
Base material /chromium metal layer / chromium oxide surface layer portion (passivated) / SiO2 layer
wherein the base material is transparent glass or plastic (1:21-22).
In terms of thickness, the thickness of the chromium metal layer can vary between 1-100 nm and the chromium oxide layer can vary between 2.5-150 nm both depending on the desired transmittance and reflectance properties (3:1-25). The selection of the thicknesses and the ratio of thicknesses would have been obvious through routine optimization of these result effective variables.
Livingston does not teach a step for passivating the surface of the chromium to form the chromium oxide surface layer portion.
However, LeFebvre teaches a method for depositing optical films on glass and plastic eyeglass lenses (5:39-45), where a metal layer is deposited in a normal manner and then subjected to oxidation by ion gun (7:34).
Additionally, Knapp teaches a method for forming a substantially similar coating stack applied to lenses (abstract) wherein a multilayer coating that can include a metal layer of chromium on a base material of plastic such as polycarbonates, etc., further includes a SiO2 layer on the base material, between the base and chromium metal layer as an adhesion layer (see Col. 2, lines 11-13, 18-20, Col. 2, lines 50-51, Col. 8, lines 57-60, Col. 13 lines 30-45 and especially Col. 20, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Livingston on an eyeglass lens substrate and further include a silica adhesion layer between the base material and chromium metal layer and form the chromium oxide layer by oxidation with an ion gun. Livingston is open to glass and plastic optical products, such as the eyeglass lenses of Knapp and LeFebvre, the addition of a silica adhesion layer boosts the adhesion of the superposed layers, and oxidation with ion gun is suitable in the optical field.
The resulting stack taught by the combination is:
Base material / SiO2 layer / chromium metal layer / chromium oxide surface layer portion (passivated) / SiO2 layer (metal oxide layer)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/35 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues LeFebvre does not teach partial oxidation, only full oxidation of the layer. However, LeFebvre does teach partial oxidation of the layer at (10:38-21) and (16:48-67). It is additionally noted that Livingston does teach controlling the thickness of the chromium layer and the thickness of the chromium oxide layer in order to achieve the desired transmittance and reflectance properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759