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 .
Response to Pre-amendment
2. The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed by applicant on 11/13/2023. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the abstract, the drawings, the specification and the claims.
2a) Regarding the abstract, applicant has submitted an amended abstract in a separated sheet;
2b) Regarding the drawings, applicant has submitted as set of ten replacement sheets contained figures 1-7, 8a-8b, 9 and 10a-10e;
2c) Regarding the specification, applicant has submitted a substitute specification with its marked-up copy showing the changes to the specification and a statement that the substitute specification does not contain any new matter; and
2d) Regarding to the claims, applicant has canceled claims 1-22 and added a new set of claims, i.e., claim 23-44, into the application.
3. The pre-amendment filed by applicant on 11/13/2024 has been considered and the following conclusions are made:
3a) The amended abstract, the ten replacement sheets and the substituted specification have been entered; and
3b) Because applicant has canceled claims 1-22 and added new claims 23-44 (Note that there is not any claim being amended), thus the pending claims are claims 23-44, see Note below).
Note: The claim between claim 38 and claim 40 was numbered as “Claim 3917”. It is suggested the number of that claim should be changed to --39--.
4. In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 01/20/2026, applicant has made an election on 02/26/2026 and provided a list of claims in which the claim No. “3917” between claims 38 and 40 was renumbered as Claim 39.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election of Invention II in the Election filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
6. As a result of applicant’s election, claims 23, 25-27 and 39-44 are examined in the present office action, and claims 24 and 28-38 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions. Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 24 and 28-38 will be rejoined if the linking claim 23 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
7. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
8. The ten replacement sheets of figures 1-7, 8a-8b, 9 and 10a-10e were received on 11/13/2023.
9. As a result of the changes to the drawings, the application now contains a total of ten sheets of figures 1-7, 8a-8b, 9 and 10a-10e which includes ten replacement sheets of figures 1-7, 8a-8b, 9 and 10a-10e as filed on 11/13/2023 and not any sheet as originally filed. The mentioned total of ten sheets of figures 1-7, 8a-8b, 9 and 10a-10e are objected by the examiner for the following reason(s).
10. The drawings are objected to because the values shown in each figures 4, 7 and 9-10 are not correct in US practice. In particular, what does applicant mean by “8,0” for the value of thickness d10 of layer number 10? The examiner is of opinion that all values listed in figs. 4, 7 and 9-10 needs to be amended in accordance to US practice. For example, number of “8,0” should be changed to --8.00--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
11. The substitute specification filed on 11/13/2023 has been entered.
12. The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 11/13/2023 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
13. The Summary is objected to because it longs 23 pages and contains numerous details of the invention. The Summary also refers to the claims, see page 2, and prior art, see page 4. It is suggested that applicant provides a brief description of the invention in the Summary and moves detailed descriptions of the invention to the section of “Detailed Description”. Appropriate correction is required.
14. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a) Page 17: on line 30, what does applicant mean by “( ם ≈ ם ם with a high level of transmission properties"? b) Pages 24-25: what are differences among the brief descriptions of figures 1-3? Applicant should note that figures 1-3 as shown in the Drawings having different structures; however, the brief descriptions of the figures are identical in languages to each other. There are still some grammatical and idiomatic errors in the specification. Applicant should carefully proofread the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
15. Claims 23, 25-27 and 39-43 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
a) Claim 23 is objected because the phrase thereof “a high-refraction and a low-refraction layer sheet are arranged” (line 4) has a grammatical error. Should the term “sheet” in the phrase be changed to --sheets--? See the use of claimed language as provided in claim 44 on lines 5-6.
b) In claim 23: “1100 nm” (line 8) should be changed to --1,100 nm--.
c) In claim 39: “1000 nm” (line 2) should be changed to --1,000 nm--.
d) In claim 43: “1100 nm” (line 3) should be changed to --1,100 nm--.
e) In claim 44: “1100 nm” (line 9) should be changed to --1,100 nm--.
f) The remaining claims are dependent upon the objected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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.
17. Claims 25-27, 38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the last optically active layer” (lines 1-2) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
b) Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the layer sheets … about 400 nm” (lines 1-5). It is unclear which “the layer sheets” does the claim recites on line 1. Applicant is respectfully invited to review its base claim 23 which recites two sets of “the layer sheets” in which one is of low-refraction layer sheets and the other one is high-refraction layer sheets. Thus, which one does applicant imply by “the layer sheets” on line 1 of claim 26?
c) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
c1) the similar reason as set forth in element b) above; and
c2) the claim is indefinite due to the use of phrase “in particular” on line 5. Applicant should note that the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
d) Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “the reflectivity of … 80 % per 100 nm” (lines 1-4).
The mentioned feature make the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the so-called “a slope of … 80 % per 100 nm” (lines 3-4). What does applicant mean by “a slope”?
e) Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
e1) the feature thereof “the reflectivity” (line 1) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Applicant should note that while its base claim 23 recites a reflectivity, see claim 23 on lines 7 and 9; however, the so-called “a reflectivity” in claim 23 is referred to a reflectivity of a detection angle, not a viewing angle; and
e2) the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the so-called “a viewing angle” is formed. Applicant is respectfully invited to review its base claim 23 on lines 5-6 which defines the manner in which a detection angle is formed.
f) Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reasons as set forth in elements c2) and e) above.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
19. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim recites that the spectacles lens with the layer system of its base claim 23 has its reflectivity less than 5% for a wavelength of about 400 nm to 1100 nm, see claim 43 on lines 1-3; however, its base claim 23 recites that the reflectivity is less than 5% in a range of about 400 nm to 680 nm, see claim 23 on lines 5-10. Thus, claim 43 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 23 upon which it depends
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Claims 23, 25-27, 39 and 42-44, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US Patent No. 10,031,349).
Takahashi discloses a spectacle lens having a base and an anti-reflection structure formed on at least one surface of the base.
a) Regarding present claims 23 and 42-43, the spectacle lens as described in columns 3-6, Example 1, Table 1 and shown in fig. 1 comprises the following features:
a1) a base having at least one surface;
a2) a multilayered film comprises seven layers constituted by low-refraction layer and high-refraction layers alternatively arranged on the at least one surface of the base; and
a3) at a detection angle of 00 with respect to a normal of the at least one surface then a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 680 nm and about 1,100 nm is larger than 15%, and a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 400 nm and about 680 nm is less than 5%, see fig. 1.
b) Regarding present claim 25, the layer which is located outermost from the base, is a low-refraction layer made by SiO2, see column 3 on lines 57-67.
c) Regarding present claim 26, a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 280 nm and about 400 nm is larger than 10%, see fig. 1.
d) Regarding present claim 27, a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 400 nm and about 680 nm is less than 1%, see fig. 1.
e) Regarding present claim 39, as calculated from fig. 1 for a range of wavelength from 750 nm to 850 nm, i.e., a size of 100 nm, then the slope, i.e., the ratio of angle defined by the reflectivity curve makes with the horizontal axis and the angle of 900 is around 0.7 or 70% which is inside the range of (20%; 80%) as claimed
f) Regarding present claim 44, the method steps are implicitly met by the structure limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
23. Claims 40-41 each is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that each claim should be amended to overcome the rejections of the claim and its base claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the present office action.
24. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) The layer system having a substrate base and a structure comprises a plurality of low-refractive layer sheet and a plurality of high-refractive layer sheets alternatively arranged on a surface of the base having a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 680 nm and about 1,100 nm is larger than 15%, and a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 400 nm and about 680 nm is less than 5% at a detection angle of 00 with respect to a normal of the at least one surface is allowable with respect to the prior art in particular the US Patent No. 10,031,349 by the limitations thereof “the reflectivity starting … of about 00” as recited in claim 40 on lines 1-5. Such feature in combination with features thereof “a substrate … 680 nm” recited in its base 23 (lines 2-1) is not disclosed in the prior art.
b) The layer system having a substrate base and a structure comprises a plurality of low-refractive layer sheet and a plurality of high-refractive layer sheets alternatively arranged on a surface of the base having a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 680 nm and about 1,100 nm is larger than 15%, and a reflectivity, R, for electromagnetic radiation of at least a wavelength range between 400 nm and about 680 nm is less than 5% at a detection angle of 00 with respect to a normal of the at least one surface is allowable with respect to the prior art in particular the US Patent No. 10,031,349 by the limitations thereof “the reflectivity … of about 53%” as recited in claim 41 on lines 1-6. Such feature in combination with features thereof “a substrate … 680 nm” recited in its base 23 (lines 2-1) is not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
26. The US Patent Nos. 9,291,746 and 10,082,679 are cited as of interest in that each discloses a spectacle lens having a base and an anti-reflection structure formed on at least one surface of the base wherein the anti-reflection n structure comprises alternatively low-refraction layer and high-refraction layer which in combination has specific reflectivity in particular bandwidths.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872