DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Rigato fails to teach which structural modifications have to be applied to example 1 or 2 of Kudla to arrive at the subject matter claimed, 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). See the rejections below in view of the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-19, 22-27, 29, 31-32 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”).
As to claim 16, Kudla discloses an optical lens (¶ 0002) comprising
a substrate having a front main face and a rear main face (¶ 0002),
at least one of the main faces comprising a multilayer antireflection coating (¶ 0023),
wherein the multilayer antireflection coating(s) present on the main face(s) provide(s) the optical lens with the following property:
- an average blue light reflection factor RmB3 within a wavelength range of from 440 nm to 460 nm, which is higher than or equal to 15 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2, Example C1; Rm,B@15° (420-450nm) – 20.3%),
wherein the spectral reflectivity curve of said multilayer antireflection coating for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° has a reflection peak centered at a wavelength higher than or equal to 330 nm and lower than or equal to 420 nm (See Fig. 1-2; ¶ 0094), and
said reflection peak has a maximum reflectivity lower than or equal to 51 % and exhibits a full width at half maximum higher than 70 nm (See Fig. 1 and 2; ¶ 0061; Table 2), and
said multilayer antireflection coating comprises a stack of at least one high refractive index layer having a refractive index higher than 1.55 and at least one low refractive index layer having a refractive index of 1.55 or less (¶ 0204-0205), the refractive indexes being expressed for a wavelength of 550 nm (¶ 0206),
wherein said multilayer antireflection coating provides said at least one main face with a mean light reflection factor Rv between 380 nm and 780 nm, defined in the ISO 13666:1998 standard, lower than or equal to 1.25 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2, Example C1, Rv@15° (380-780nm) – 0.84%).
As to claim 17, Kudla discloses wherein the multilayer antireflection coating(s) present on the main face(s) provide(s) the optical lens with an average blue light reflection factor RmB2, within a wavelength range of from 465 nm to 495 nm, lower than or equal to 10 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2: 1.6% in Example C1).
As to claim 18, Kudla discloses wherein said average blue light reflection factor RmB3 within a wavelength range of from 440 nm to 460 nm, is higher than or equal to 17 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2, Example C1; Rm,B@15° (420-450nm) – 20.3%).
As to claim 19, Kudla discloses wherein the multilayer antireflection coating(s) present on the main face(s) provide(s) the optical lens with an average blue light reflection factor RmB1, within a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 450 nm, higher than or equal to 15 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2, Example C1; Rm,B@15° (420-450nm) – 20.3%).
As to claim 22, Kudla discloses wherein said reflection peak exhibits a full width at half maximum lower than 150 nm (See Table 2, Example C1 - 97 nm; Example C2 - 103 nm).
As to claim 23, Kudla discloses wherein said reflection peak exhibits a full width at half maximum lower than 120 nm (See Table 2, Example C1 - 97 nm; Example C2 - 103 nm).
As to claim 24, Kudla discloses wherein said multilayer antireflection coating comprises a number of layers lower than or equal to 10 (See Table 2: 6 layers in both Example C1 and Example C2).
As to claim 25, Kudla discloses wherein said multilayer antireflection coating comprises a number of layers ranging from 5 to 8 (See Table 2: 6 layers in both Example C1 and Example C2).
As to claim 26, Kudla discloses wherein said multilayer antireflection coating has a total thickness lower than or equal to 700 nm (See Table 2: 365 nm in Example C1 and 378 nm in Example C2).
As to claim 27, Kudla discloses further defined as an ophthalmic lens (¶ 0002).
As to claim 29, Kudla discloses wherein the multilayer antireflection coating(s) present on the main face(s) provide(s) the optical lens with an average blue light reflection factor RmB1, within a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 450 nm, lower than or equal to 40 %,for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2: 20.3% in Example C1 and 30.8% in Example C2.).
As to claim 31, Kudla discloses wherein the value of the reflectivity decreases from the wavelength corresponding to the maximum reflectivity to the wavelength corresponding to the half maximum of said reflection peak at an average rate ranging from 0.3 %/nm to 0.7 %/nm (See Fig. 1 and 2; The rate is about .5%/nm).
As to claim 32, Kudla discloses wherein the value of the reflectivity decreases from the wavelength corresponding to the maximum reflectivity of said reflection peak to the wavelength of 465 nm at an average rate ranging from 0.3 %/nm to 0.7 %/nm (See Fig. 1 and 2; The rate is about .5%/nm).
As to claim 36, Kudla discloses wherein said multilayer antireflection coating provides said at least one main face with a mean light reflection factor Rv between 380 nm and 780 nm, defined in the ISO 13666:1998 standard, lower than or equal to 1 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15° (See Table 2; RV@15° (380-780nm) - .84%).
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(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2017/0131572 A1 to Rigato et al (“Rigato”).
As to claim 28, Kudla fails to disclose having an average blue light transmission factor TmB1 within a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 450 nm, which is higher than or equal to 65 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15°, wherein TmB1 is defined by the following formula in which T(k) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ.
Rigato discloses having an average blue light transmission factor TmB1 within a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 450 nm, which is higher than or equal to 65 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15°, wherein TmB1 is defined by the following formula in which T(k) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ (¶ 0085, 70.6 %).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kudla with the teachings of Rigato having an average blue light transmission factor TmB1 within a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 450 nm, which is higher than or equal to 65 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 15°, wherein TmB1 is defined by the following formula in which T(k) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ, as suggested by Rigato thereby similarly using known configurations for multilayer antireflection coatings in the lens of Kudla.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2015/0098058 A1 to De Ayguavives et al (“Ayguavives”).
As to claim 30, Kudla fails to disclose wherein said substrate comprises at least one blue light cutting agent that at least partially blocks light having a wavelength ranging from 400 to 455 nm, selected from an UV absorber and a blue light absorbing colorant.
Ayguavives discloses wherein said substrate comprises at least one blue light cutting agent that at least partially blocks light having a wavelength ranging from 400 to 455 nm, selected from an UV absorber and a blue light absorbing colorant (¶ 0041, 0058).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kudla with the teachings Ayguavives wherein said substrate comprises at least one blue light cutting agent that at least partially blocks light having a wavelength ranging from 400 to 455 nm, selected from an UV absorber and a blue light absorbing colorant, as suggested by Ayguavives thereby similarly using known configurations and techniques to block harmful blue wavelengths in the lens of Kudla.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2016/0154254 A1 to Bolshakov et al (“Bolshakov”)
As to claim 33, Kudla fails to disclose wherein the optical lens has a chroma C* in reflection as defined in the CIE (1976) L*a*b* international colorimetric system that is decreasing when increasing the angle of incidence, in the range of 0° to 90° of angles of incidence.
Bolshakov discloses wherein the optical lens has a chroma C* in reflection as defined in the CIE (1976) L*a*b* international colorimetric system that is decreasing when increasing the angle of incidence, in the range of 0° to 90° of angles of incidence (¶ 0026, 0055, 0061).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kudla with the teachings of Bolshakov wherein the optical lens has a chroma C* in reflection as defined in the CIE (1976) L*a*b* international colorimetric system that is decreasing when increasing the angle of incidence, in the range of 0° to 90° of angles of incidence, as suggested by Bolshakov thereby similarly using known configurations of of lenses possessing very good antireflective performances in the visible region.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”) in view of EP 3,654,072 A1 to Valenti et al (“Valenti”).
As to claim 34, Kudla fails to disclose further defined as having at least one main face successively coated with:
- (A) a first high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55, which does not comprise any Ta2Os layer,
- (B) a second low refractive index sheet having a refractive index of 1.55 or less in direct contact with the former sheet (A),
- (C) a third high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55 in direct contact with the former sheet (B),
- a monolayer sub-layer having a thickness higher than or equal to 120 nm in direct contact with the former sheet (C), and
- said multilayer antireflection coating.
Valenti discloses further defined as having at least one main face successively coated with:
- (A) a first high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55, which does not comprise any Ta2Os layer (¶ 0015),
- (B) a second low refractive index sheet having a refractive index of 1.55 or less in direct contact with the former sheet (A) (¶ 0015),
- (C) a third high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55 in direct contact with the former sheet (B) (¶ 0015),
- a monolayer sub-layer having a thickness higher than or equal to 120 nm in direct contact with the former sheet (C) (¶ 0015), and
- said multilayer antireflection coating (¶ 0015).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kudla with the teachings of Valenti further defined as having at least one main face successively coated with: - (A) a first high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55, which does not comprise any Ta2Os layer, - (B) a second low refractive index sheet having a refractive index of 1.55 or less in direct contact with the former sheet (A), - (C) a third high refractive index sheet having a refractive index higher than 1.55 in direct contact with the former sheet (B), - a monolayer sub-layer having a thickness higher than or equal to 120 nm in direct contact with the former sheet (C), and - said multilayer antireflection coating, as suggested by Valenti thereby similarly using known configurations of optical lenses in the lens of Kudla.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2015/0261010 A1 to Kudla et al (“Kudla”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2018/0321510 A1 to Vetro.
As to claim 35, Kudla fails to disclose having a mean blue-violet light protection factor BVC within a wavelength range of from 400 nm to 455 nm, which is higher than or equal 20 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 45°, wherein BVC is defined by the following formula in which T(X) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ and the weighting function B'(λ) represents the light hazard function at a given wavelength λ.
Vetro discloses having a mean blue-violet light protection factor BVC within a wavelength range of from 400 nm to 455 nm, which is higher than or equal 20 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 45°, wherein BVC is defined by the following formula in which T(X) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ and the weighting function B'(λ) represents the light hazard function at a given wavelength λ (See claim 35; The corresponding formula is defined in this claim as recited in this limitation.).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kulda with the teachings of Vetro for having a mean blue-violet light protection factor BVC within a wavelength range of from 400 nm to 455 nm, which is higher than or equal 20 %, for an angle of incidence ranging from 0° to 45°, wherein BVC is defined by the following formula in which T(X) represents the lens transmission factor at a given wavelength λ and the weighting function B'(λ) represents the light hazard function at a given wavelength λ, as suggested by Vetro thereby similarly using known configurations for optical lenses that partially block the transmission of light in the blue region of the light spectrum while preferably maintaining good transparency based on the user’s perception.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights