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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 6-15 in the reply filed on 9/11/2025 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)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 6 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) in view of Shan (US2013/0120707 A1). Regarding claim 6 , Toyoshima discloses a molding method [0002] , comprising: coupling a first mold side ( 42 ) of a mold and a second mold side ( 44 ) of the mold, the first mold side ( 42 ) including a first mold insert ( 14 ) disposed on a surface of the first mold side ( 42 ), the second mold side ( 44 ) including a second mold insert ( 16 ) disposed on a surface of the second mold side ( 44 ), the first mold insert ( 14 ) including a plurality of inverted microstructures ( 28B ) formed thereon, the plurality of inverted microstructures ( 28B ) disposed according to a predetermined layout [0046] , the first mold insert ( 14 ) and the second mold insert ( 16 ) forming a cavity (22) when coupled (figure 4A where the resin 30 is filled) , the first mold insert ( 14 ) and the second mold insert ( 16 ) being separated by a first predetermined gap ((see figure 2)) ; injecting a first predetermined volume of a polymer melt into the cavity [0016, 0044, 0056]; and closing the first mold insert ( 14 ) and the second mold insert ( 16 ) at a predetermined closing rate (molds must be closed in order to form the desired structure/product [0076-0078]). Toyoshima discloses the first mold insert is stainless steel [0045] does not explicitly disclose the second mold insert having a lower thermal conductivity than the first mold insert . However, analogous lens art, Shan, discloses using plastic insert in order to mold below material’s glass transition temperature [0051] and the second insert has a heat conductivity lower than the first insert [0028-0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second mold insert having a lower thermal conductivity than the first in order to mold below a material’s glass transition temperature , as taught by Shan into the method taught by Toyoshima, in order to mold below the material’s glass transition temperature (note: plastic has a lower conductivity than stainless steel metal). Regarding claim 9 , Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein the first predetermined volume is based on a percentage of a weight of a resulting lens, the percentage injected being equal to or less than 100% of a resulting lens weight . However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the percentage injected being equal to 100% of the resulting weight in order to ensure a full lens is formed/molded/ the injection mold goes into all the crevices of the mold. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 10, Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein the first predetermined volume is based on a percentage of a weight of a resulting lens, the percentage injected being greater than 100% of the resulting lens weight . However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the percentage injected being greater than 100% of the resulting weight in order to ensure every crevice of the lens are filled with the injected materials to ensure a full lens is formed/molded. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 11, Toyoshima discloses wherein an excess of the percentage of the injected polymer melt is expelled from the cavity but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have excess percentage of the injected polymer melt expelled from the cavity in order to ensure the molds properly close. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 12, Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein closing the first mold insert and the second mold insert further comprises closing the first mold insert and the second mold insert upon the injected first predetermined volume reaching 94% or greater of a resulting lens weight, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the percentage injected first predetermined volume reaching 94% or greater of a resulting lens weight of the resulting weight in order to ensure a full lens is formed/molded and the resin material reaches every crevice of the mold . "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 13 , Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein the first mold insert and the second mold insert further comprises stopping the closing upon the first mold insert and the second mold insert being separated by a second predetermined gap. However, Shan discloses a gap exists between mold inserts to define a cavity [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a second predetermined gap since there a two inserts. MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) in view of Shan (US2013/0120707 A1), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Hara et al (US 6,203,744 B1). Regarding claim 7, Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum of the predetermined closing rate is greater than or equal to 20 mm/s . Analogous molding art, Hara, discloses a closing rate of 30 mm/sec (column 4 lines 42-44) for the benefit of having no or little cold mark ( column 1 lines 54-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a maximum of the predetermined closing rate is greater than or equal to 20 mm/s at taught by Hara et al into the method taught by Toyoshima for the benefit of having no or little cold mark. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) in view of Shan (US2013/0120707 A1), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Kishbaugh (WO2002/026485 A1). Regarding claim 8, Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness ratio is a ratio of a cavity edge thickness to a cavity center thickness, and the thickness ratio of less than 10 is maintained during the step of injecting the first predetermined volume of the polymer melt into the cavity . However, analogous molding art, Kishbaugh discloses average wall thickness is no more than about 0.05% greater than the average wall thickness of the mold interior (pg. 19 lines 14-20). MPEP 2144.05 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness ratio of less than 10 for the benefit of providing a uniform wall thickness. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) in view of Shan (US2013/0120707 A1), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of WO2010092760 A1, herein referred to as ‘760. Regarding claim 14, Toyoshima does not explicitly disclose wherein the first predetermined gap is greater than or equal to 5 mm. Analogous molding art, ‘760, discloses a gap of 2 mm or more (pg. 7 paragraph 4) in order allow resin in the molds. MPEP 214.05 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a gap is greater than or equal to 5 mm in order to allow injected material in the mold. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) in view of Shan (US2013/0120707 A1), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Martin (CA2574431 A1). Regarding claim 15, Toyoshima doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first mold insert is plated with nickel-phosphorous (NiP), the plurality of inverted microstructures formed on the NiP plating . However, analogous art, Martin, discloses the mold inserts are plated with NiP and microstructures are formed on the plate (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a mold insert with NiP and microstructures formed on the plate , as taught by Martin into the method taught by Toyoshima in order to achieve a short mold cycle time (pg. 3 lines 16-20) and corrosive resistance (pg. 3y lines 1-3). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/708,934 in view of Toyoshima (US2021/0387430 A1) . The instant application discloses first mold insert, the contacting surface including a plurality of inverted microstructures disposed on the contacting surface and second mold insert (see claim 1). The instant application does not teach applying a curable coating to a surface of the base lens having the microstructures formed thereon; pressing the contacting surface of the second mold insert into at least a portion of the curable coating applied to the surface of the base lens; and curing the curing the curable coating into a curable layer, the microstructures being substantially entirely encapsulated in the curable layer. However, analogous art Toyoshima discloses the hemispherical recesses 30A are formed through ultra-precision micromachining at a plurality of positions corresponding to the protrusions 6 of the spectacle lens 1, of the coating layer 28 made of the nickel alloy, which is a ductile material [0052] and applying a coating [0063] on the curable layer [0077]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated teach applying a curable coating to a surface of the base lens having the microstructures formed thereon; pressing the contacting surface of the second mold insert into at least a portion of the curable coating applied to the surface of the base lens; and curing the curing the curable coating into a curable layer, the microstructures being substantially entirely encapsulated in the curable layer , as taught by Toyoshima, into the method taught by ‘934 for the benefit of highly accurate spectacle lens molding mold having a minute recess. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6765 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Susan Leong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1487 . 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. /FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754