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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent 2008-238,522 in view of either of Takamizawa et al 5,096,626 or CN 1982392 essentially for reasons of record noting the following.
The primary reference –see the translation at the passage bridging pages 6 and 7—teaches that the methoxy group in the silane, upon exposure to moisture in the air during the annealing, becomes a hydroxyl group by hydrolysis and that these hydroxyl groups are bonded –against the mold—by a dehydration condensation reaction. Essentially, the instant claims are directed to a similar reaction, except that an alcohol is used in lieu of exposure to moisture in the air. Clearly, the use of an alcohol to form a silane coating is well known in the art as taught in either secondary reference. It is surely within the skill level of the art to know the different ways in which a silane would be reacted to form a bonding hydroxyl group and that is in fact all the secondary references are being relied upon to teach. It is not material to the rejection—or the manner in which the secondary references are being used—that the coating is subsequently transferred to the resultant lens in Takamizawa et al or that it is not a lens mold being coated in CN 1982392. The secondary references are merely being relied upon to teach the use of an aqueous alcohol solution from which a silane is coated onto a surface, an aspect which is submitted to be well known as taught in either secondary reference. One of ordinary skill in the art of the primary reference would have been expected to know this and employ an aqueous alcohol solution in the primary reference as taught in either secondary reference to facilitate the hydrolysis reaction.
2.Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that the coating process of either secondary reference would not have been used by one of ordinary skill in the art in the primary reference. As noted supra, it is merely the use of an alcohol that is being relied upon in the secondary references. Hence, the fact that the coating does not stay on the mold in Takamizawa et al or that a surface other than a lens mold is coated as in CN -392 is submitted to not be germane to the rejection at hand. Rather, the rejection at hand depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art, desiring to form hydroxyl groups on the silane to facilitate the dehydration condensation reaction in the primary reference, would have been motivated to employ a alcohol solution for the silane as taught in the secondary references. Hence, while applicant suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the mold lining composition of Takamizawa et al in the primary reference, it must be understood that the rejection does not encompass this. Rather, it is the alcohol solution being used. Also, CN -392 is submitted to be valid for a teaching of providing a silane coating using an alcohol solution, regardless of the exact surface that the silane is being attached to. Since an alcohol solution is taught as being effective for facilitating the dehydration condensation reaction of a silane against a surface in the secondary references, it is submitted as prima facie obvious it would do so in the primary reference and that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been expected to have knowledge of this.
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
Prosecution Insights