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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 17, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohta et al. (US 2018/0148578).
Regarding Claim 17, Ohta discloses an optical device (Fig. 1A, transparent laminate 1, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5), comprising:
a base layer having a first refractive index (Fig. 1A, substrate 11, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 9-10, transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50);
a coating layer having a second refractive index (Fig. 1A, structure layer 12, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 11, structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53);
wherein an index matching system is interposed between the base layer and the coating layer (Paragraph 0148, lines 1-3, and intermediate layer can be provided between the transparent substrate and the structed layer) to reduce interference fringes of the optical device (Paragraph 0149, lines 1-3, the refractive index of the intermediate layer is preferably close to that of the structure layer in order to prevent the variation in interference, Paragraph 0094, lines 1-4, “interference” meaning “interference fringes”).
Regarding Claim 19, Ohta discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the optical device comprises single or multifocal eyeglass lenses, non-ophthalmic lenses (Fig. 9A, eye shield 73, Paragraphs 0193 and Paragraph 0195) and windows.
Regarding Claim 25, Ohta discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the index matching system is disposed on a back surface of the base layer (Paragraph 0148, lines 1-3, and intermediate layer can be provided on the transparent substrate).
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.
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 18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2018/0148578).
Regarding Claim 18, Ohta discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater” since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges (since transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50 and the structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53, so that the differences can range from 0.01 to 0.05) are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to prevent interference fringes.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater” since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claim 32, Ohta discloses a method for reducing interference fringes in an optical article (Paragraph 0094, lines 1-4, “interference” meaning “interference fringes”), comprising:
obtaining a lens base (Fig. 9A, eye shield 73, Paragraphs 0193 and Paragraph 0195) having a first refractive index (Fig. 1A, substrate 11, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 9-10, transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50);
forming an index matching system (Paragraph 0149, lines 1-3, the refractive index of the intermediate layer is preferably close to that of the structure layer in order to prevent the variation in interference), on a surface of the lens base (Paragraph 0148, lines 1-3, and intermediate layer can be provided between the transparent substrate and the structed layer); and
applying a coating comprising a second refractive index (Fig. 1A, structure layer 12, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 11, structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53).
Ohta discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater on a surface of the index matching system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater on a surface of the index matching system” since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges (since transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50 and the structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53, so that the differences can range from 0.01 to 0.05) are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to prevent interference fringes.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater on a surface of the index matching system” since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2018/0148578) in view of Raychaudhuri et al. (US 2005/0266208).
Regarding Claim 20, Ohta discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the coating layer comprises a UV cured hard coating.
However, Raychaudhuri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the coating layer comprises a UV cured hard coating (Fig. 2, inner layer 14 is a hard coat layer, that is a UV-curable formulation, Paragraph 0044, lines 1-17, an outer layer 16 is further deposited consisting of an antistatic layer), for the purpose of providing abrasion resistance and reducing static (Paragraph 0045, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical device of Ohta with the wherein the coating layer comprises a UV cured hard coating, of Raychaudhuri, for the purpose of providing abrasion resistance and reducing static.
Regarding Claim 23, Ohta in view of Raychaudhuri discloses as is set forth and further Raychaudhuri discloses further comprises an antireflective coating disposed on the hard coating (Fig. 2, inner layer 14 is a hard coat layer, that is a UV-curable formulation, Paragraph 0044, lines 1-17, an outer layer 16 is further deposited consisting of an antistatic layer), for the purpose of providing abrasion resistance and reducing static (Paragraph 0045, lines 1-4).
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2018/0148578) in view of Pokorny et al. (US 2008/0160186, of record).
Regarding Claim 27, Ohta discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a single surface peak-to peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum of the optical device is below 2%.
However, Pokorny, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a single surface peak-to peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum of the optical device is below 2% (Fig. 4, example 1, Paragraph 0086, lines 1-4), for the purpose of reducing visible interference fringes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical device of Ohta with the wherein a single surface peak-to peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum of the optical device is below 2%, of Pokorny, for the purpose of reducing visible interference fringes.
Regarding Claim 36, Ohta discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein reducing the interference fringes in the optical article further comprises obtaining a single surface average peak-to-peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum below 2%.
However, Pokorny, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein reducing the interference fringes in the optical article further comprises obtaining a single surface average peak-to-peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum below 2% (Fig. 4, example 1, Paragraph 0086, lines 1-4), for the purpose of reducing visible interference fringes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical device of Ohta with the wherein reducing the interference fringes in the optical article further comprises obtaining a single surface average peak-to-peak reflectance variation across the visible spectrum below 2%, of Pokorny, for the purpose of reducing visible interference fringes.
Claims 28, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2018/0148578) in view of Biver et al. (US 2010/0136290).
Regarding Claim 28, Ohta discloses an optical device having reduced interference fringes (Paragraph 0149, lines 1-3, the refractive index of the intermediate layer is preferably close to that of the structure layer in order to prevent the variation in interference, Paragraph 0094, lines 1-4, “interference” meaning “interference fringes”), comprising:
a base having a first refractive index (Fig. 1A, substrate 11, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 9-10, transparent substrate refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50);
an index matching system disposed on a surface of the base (Paragraph 0148, lines 1-3, and intermediate layer can be provided between the transparent substrate and the structed layer), and
a coating layer is disposed on a surface of the index matching system (Fig. 1A, structure layer 12, Paragraph 0076, lines 1-5, Paragraph 0081, lines 11, structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53);
wherein the coating layer comprises a second refractive index that differs from the first refractive index (Fig. 1A, transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50 and structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53).
Ohta doesn’t specifically disclose an ophthalmic lens.
However, Biver, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an ophthalmic lens (Paragraph 0028, lines 3-6), for the purpose of providing corrected vision to the user while reducing visible interference fringes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical device of Ohta with an ophthalmic lens of Biver, for the purpose of providing corrected vision to the user while reducing visible interference fringes.
Regarding Claim 29, Ohta in view of Biver discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater” since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges (since transparent substrate 11 refractive index = 1.48 to 1.50 and the structure layer 12 refractive index = 1.51 to 1.53, so that the differences can range from 0.01 to 0.05) are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to prevent interference fringes.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the “wherein the second refractive index differs from the first refractive index by 0.08 or greater” since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), for the purpose of preventing interference fringes.
Regarding Claim 33, Ohta discloses as is set forth above (wherein obtaining the lens base having the first refractive index, see claim 32 above) but doesn’t specifically disclose comprises obtaining a base of an eyeglass lens.
However, Biver, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining a base of an eyeglass lens (Paragraph 0028, lines 3-6), for the purpose of providing corrected vision to the user while reducing visible interference fringes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Ohta with obtaining a base of an eyeglass lens of Biver, for the purpose of providing corrected vision to the user while reducing visible interference fringes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 22, 24, 26, 30, 31, and 34-35 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 21, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the index matching system comprises a plurality of layers of materials wherein immediately adjacent layers of materials have distinct refractive indices.
Specifically, with respect to claim 22, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the index matching system comprises alternating urethane-based layers having different refractive indices.
Specifically, with respect to claim 26, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an optical device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the first refractive index is equal to or greater than 1.60 and second refractive index is about 1.50.
Specifically, with respect to claim 30, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an ophthalmic lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the index matching system comprises a plurality of index matching layers.
Specifically, with respect to claim 31, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach an ophthalmic lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein immediately adjacent layers of the plurality of index matching layers have distinct refractive indices.
Specifically, with respect to claim 34, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein forming the index matching system on the surface of the lens base further comprises forming a plurality of material layers with different refractive indices relative to one another on the surface of the lens base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pokorny et al. (US 2008/0160186), Kakinuma et al. (US 2017/0209308), Chiu et al. (US 2009/0283926), Caron et al. (US 2004/0074261), Yan et al. (US 2010/0166949), Yan et al. (US 2010/0168264), and Coue et al. (US 2011/0128664) are cited to show similar optical devices, lenses, and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872