1.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(s) 1, 3-11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaqwaguchi et al 12,064,908 (see col. 6, lines 11-13) in view of JP 2020-139085 (see page 10 of the translation, lines 6-10).
The claims are rejected essentially for reasons of record. Note that the primary reference (see col. 6, lines 11-13) discloses the gap width 20 as being between .05-2 mm, .1-1 mm and most preferably between .1-.6 mm, the latter lying completely within the instant range of . 1 to .7 mm. Also, JP -085 (see page 10 of the translation, lines 6-10) teaches that a photochromic lens would have between 100-5,000 ppm and preferably 100-3000 ppm of photochromic additive, the upper range of either lying within the instant range of 1,000 to 7,000 ppm. On this basis. It is submitted as being well within the skill level of the art to choose the instant lens layer thickness and photochromic compound amount as the instant values are certainly taught in the prior art as applied. JP -085 also discloses that the performance of the lens incorporating the photochromic additive “differs depending on the type of the naphthopyran compound” used. Presumably, the performance noted in JP -085 would include certain parameters—ie, at least coloring—noted by applicant in the instant Tables 1-4. Applicant has suggested that the instant .7 mm thickness is crucial in providing a showing of unexpected results for the instant thickness and photochromic additive amount and pointed out Examples 7-9 and Comparative Example 2 as evidence of such. However, while it is agreed that a comparison of Example 7 with Examples 8 and 9 and Comparative Example 2 would show that a .7 mm thickness (ie, Ex. 7) provides a better product, a comparison of Examples 1-4 with Examples 5 and 6 do not provide such a showing. Examples 1-4 have the instant .7 mm thickness, while Example 5 has a 1.2 mm thickness and Example 6 has a 2.0 mm thickness. Indeed, it would appear that a comparison of Examples 1-6 shows that a .7 mm thickness is not crucial to achieving markedly better properties for coloring or (lack of) striae than thicknesses of 1.2 mm or even 2.0 mm. At this juncture, it cannot be determined that any unexpected result is derived from the instant numerical values and hence the claims are maintained as being obvious over the prior art as applied. It is also noted that different concentrations of the additive are used in the different sets of Examples and it is not clear exactly how that would affect the final results. It is respectfully submitted that a probative showing of unexpected results based on the instant numerical values has not been presented at this point.
2.Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that the applied references do not disclose the instant numerical ranges for layer thickness and photochromic additive content nor do they recognize the criticality of the instant thickness. However, as noted in paragraph 1, supra, the applied art does in fact teach the instant thickness and additive content. While applicant suggests that the results of instant Examples 7-9 show an unexpected result for a thickness of .7 mm, it is submitted that such is not shown in Examples 1-6 and hence there is no probative indication of any unexpected results for this layer thickness and photochromic additive concentration.
3.THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742