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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 4, 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/11/25.
Claim Objections
Claim8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 improperly depends from canceled claim 7 . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weymouth (US 2009/0026640) in view of Naito (US 2009/0191391 A1) in view of Guillot (EP 3640712 A1).
Weymouth teaches a method for coating ophthalmic lenses (abstract) wherein the process includes dipping the lens into a coating fluid, withdrawing the lens from the coating fluid, inspecting the lens, and adjusting the timing in response to the defects found by the inspection system (Fig. 2). The inspecting step includes inspecting the thickness of the coating and the adjustment includes adjusting the withdrawal speed [0074-0076]. The purpose of the process is to include a feedback system for analyzing finished lenses and using that information to make modifications applied to in-process lenses [0010; 0021].
Weymouth does not specify how the coating thickness is inspected and measured.
However, Naito teaches a method for coating a lens substrate where the film thickness is measured by reflectance using a reflection spectral film thickness meter, such as an FE-3000 (see attached NPL document). This is a non-contact optical measurement method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the measurement method disclosed by Naito as for inspecting the lens coating thickness because Naito establishes it is suitable for this express purpose.
Weymouth does not teach the optical lenses are at least partially covered with lenslets, although is open to features on the surface of the lens [0034].
However, Guillot teaches a substantially similar process wherein the lens is at least partially covered with lenslets 8 (Fig. 1, 2, 7) and then dip-coated [0048].
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 Weymouth on the lens of Guillot. Weymouth is open to features on the surface of the lens and Guillot teaches those features include lenslets.
Claim 3:
Weymouth teaches the lens is dried, cured, and then inspected [0055-0056]. Weymouth also teaches tracking (i.e., inspecting) the lenses as they are processed through the system [0079], which would include between drying and curing. Lastly, Weymouth teaches the problem associated with waiting until after curing to inspect the finished lens [0004]. An obvious solution to this problem would be to inspect the lens earlier during the process, such as after drying and before curing.
Claim 6:
Weymouth teaches continuous adjustment of viscosity [0074].
Claim 8:
Weymouth teaches an example where the difference between measured thickness and desired thickness triggers adjustment [0074-0075]. This does depend on the fluidic properties of the coating (Id.) and the mechanical and physical properties of the lens [0034].
Claim 9:
Weymouth does teach a non-preferred embodiment where the withdrawal speed is kept constant [0075].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments regarding non-contact optical measurement. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further search.
The examiner disagrees that Weymouth does not teach adjusted withdrawal speed based on an empirical function of a difference between the measured thickness and a desired thickness. Rather, this is precisely what Weymouth seeks to accomplish through control of withdrawal speed [0072] based on identifying defects, such as thickness defects, that may fall outside an acceptable range [0074]. In this example, there is a measured thickness, a desired nominal thickness represented by the acceptable range, and an empirical function for correction when the difference between the two exceeds the acceptable range.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights