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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/01/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP2020016848A (of record, see IDS dated 03/14/2024, hereinafter, “Yutaka”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yutaka discloses a spectacle optical article (Fig. 1 is a perspective view showing sunglasses, refer to line 85 of the machine translation, where sunglasses are a type of spectacle optical article) comprising an outer surface that is a surface on an object side and an inner surface that is a surface on an eyeball side (Fig. 1, the surface of the lens on the user's eye side is referred to as the back surface, and the opposite surface is also referred to as the front surface, lines 91-92 of machine translation, thus Yutaka discloses an outer surface that is a surface on an object side and an inner surface that is a surface on an eyeball side), the spectacle optical article containing glossy particles with particle diameters of 50 to 150 mm between the outer surface and the inner surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the optical resin layer 5 includes a resin layer 50 with an optical function, lines 156-157 of machine translation, and resin layer with optical function 50 has a resin layer 51 and a filler 52 filled in the resin layer 51, line 163 of machine translation, and filler 52 is composed of many particles 521 dispersed in the resin layer 51, line 195 of machine translation, and the average particle size of the particles 521 is preferably 1 μm or more and 500 μm or less, more preferably 5 μm or more and 100 μm or less, lines 214-27 of the machine translation, overlapping the claimed range).
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation, MPEP 2131.03(II). In this case, Yutaka discloses a range of particle sizes from 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm, overlapping the claimed range of 50 μm to 150 μm. The instant application does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm. The entire range of particle sizes would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, further comprising a glossy particle-containing layer in which the glossy particles are accommodated in a layer having a thickness 1.5 times a maximum particle diameter of the glossy particles (Fig. 2, filler 52 is composed of particles 521 dispersed in resin layer 51, lines 195-198 of machine translation, and as noted above, Yutaka discloses particle sizes from 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm, lines 214-27 of the machine translation, and Yutaka discloses the thickness T51 of resin layer 51 is preferably 10 μm or more and 1500 μm or less, and more preferably 15 μm or more and 1000 μm or less, lines 173-174 of machine translation, therefore a layer thickness of 750 μm, i.e., 1.5 × 500 μm, which is within the disclosed range of thicknesses and thus satisfies the limitation as recited).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 2, further comprising a cover layer provided to cover the glossy particle-containing layer (Yutaka in Fig. 2 depicts protective layer 55, lines 156-161 of the machine translation).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according Fig. 2, filler 52 is composed of particles 521 dispersed in resin layer 51, lines 195-198 of machine translation).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, wherein the glossy particles are at least one of particles of metal or particles of an oxide of the metal (Yutaka discloses filler 52 is composed of many particles 521 dispersed in resin layer 51 and that filler 52 is composed of a metal oxide and a borosilicate, liens 195-198 of machine translation), and particles constituting a pearlescent pigment.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to Yutaka discloses the color of resin layer 51 of sunglasses 1 may be any color made possible by including a dye in resin layer 51, lines 184-187 of machine translation), wherein a mean transmittance of a line-of-sight passing portion is 8% or more (Yutaka discloses visible light transmittance is preferably 10% or more, lines 246-249 of machine translation).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, the spectacle optical article being a transparent lens (the constituent material of the spectacle lens 4 is not particularly limited as long as it has optical transparency, line 130 of machine translation), wherein a mean transmittance of a line-of-sight passing portion is 60% or more (Yutaka discloses visible light transmittance is preferably 80% or less, lines 246-249 of machine translation).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, the spectacle optical article being a spectacle lens, spectacles including the spectacle lens, sunglasses (Yutaka discloses sunglasses 1, see Fig. 1, and refer to lines 339-341 of machine translation), or goggles.
Regarding independent claim 14, Yutaka discloses a method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article (Fig. 1 is a perspective view showing sunglasses provided with an optical resin layer, refer to line 85 of the machine translation, and Yutaka discloses production of optical resin layer, lines 553-591 of machine translation, thereby disclosing a method for manufacturing the disclosed sunglasses, equivalent to a spectacle optical article) including an outer surface which is a surface on an object side and an inner surface which is a surface on an eyeball side (the surface of the lens on the user's eye side is referred to as the back surface, and the opposite surface is also referred to as the front surface, lines 91-92 of machine translation, thus Yutaka discloses an outer surface that is a surface on an object side and an inner surface that is a surface on an eyeball side), the method comprising adding glossy particles having particle diameters of 50 to 150 mm between the outer surface and the inner surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the optical resin layer 5 includes a resin layer 50 with an optical function, lines 156-157 of machine translation, and resin layer with optical function 50 has a resin layer 51 and a filler 52 filled in the resin layer 51, line 163 of machine translation, and filler 52 is composed of many particles 521 dispersed in the resin layer 51, line 195 of machine translation, and the average particle size of the particles 521 is preferably 1 μm or more and 500 μm or less, more preferably 5 μm or more and 100 μm or less, overlapping the claimed range, and Yutaka discloses the production of optical resin layer, lines 553-591 of machine translation, thereby disclosing the method comprising adding glossy particles having particle diameters of 50 to 150 mm between the outer surface and the inner surface).
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation, MPEP 2131.03(II). In this case, Yutaka discloses a range of particle sizes from 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm, overlapping the claimed range of 50 μm to 150 μm. The instant application does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm. The entire range of particle sizes would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Yutaka discloses the method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article according to claim 14, the method further comprising applying a glossy particle-containing liquid so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of a substrate (Yutaka discloses the use of various resins such as various thermoplastic resins and various curable resins such as thermosetting resins and photocurable resins, lines 130-132 of machine translation, where a resin is understood by the Examiner to be a viscous liquid).
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Dillon US Patent 6,231,183 B1 (hereinafter, “Dillon”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, further comprising: a substrate (Fig. 2, filler 52 is composed of particles 521 dispersed in resin layer 51, lines 195-198 of machine translation).
Yutaka does not disclose an antireflection layer provided so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate.
In the same field of invention, Dillon discloses sunglasses 14, see at least Fig. 1 thereof, with anti-reflection coatings 21 and 22 covering outermost and innermost surfaces (col. 8, lines 49-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dillon to the disclosure of Yutaka and included antireflection layers to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate to reduce the amount of light reflected off of the outer surface of the lens (Dillon, col. 10, lines 19-22).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Yutaka discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, further comprising: a substrate (Yutaka Fig. 2, resin layer 51, lines 195-198 of machine translation); wherein a glossy particle-containing layer in which the glossy particles are accommodated in a layer having a thickness of 1.5 times a maximum particle diameter of the glossy particles includes the glossy particles (Fig. 2, filler 52 is composed of particles 521 dispersed in resin layer 51, lines 195-198 of machine translation, and as noted above, Yutaka discloses particle sizes from 1 μm to 500 μm, with a more preferable range of 5 μm to 100 μm, lines 214-27 of the machine translation, and Yutaka discloses the thickness T51 of resin layer 51 is preferably 10 μm or more and 1500 μm or less, and more preferably 15 μm or more and 1000 μm or less, lines 173-174 of machine translation, therefore a layer thickness of 750 μm, i.e., 1.5 × 500 μm, which is within the disclosed range of thicknesses and thus satisfies the limitation as recited) and a cover layer provided to cover the glossy particle-containing layer (Yutaka in Fig. 2 depicts protective layer 55, lines 156-161 of the machine translation).
Yutaka does not disclose a primer layer provided so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate, nor a main layer provided so as to cover the primer layer, and Yutaka does not specifically disclose the glossy particle-containing layer includes at least one of the primer layer and the main layer, nor that the cover layer includes the main layer.
In the same field of invention, Dillon discloses a primer layer provided so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate (Dillon discloses primer elements 5 and 6, col. 8 line 48), and a main layer provided so as to cover the primer layer (Dillon discloses lens elements 7 and 8, col. 8 line 49, where lens elements 7 and 8 cover primer elements 5 and 6 as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dillon to the disclosure of Yutaka and included a primer layer, such as primer elements 5 and 6 as taught by Dillon, to provide a surface for other optical elements to adhere (Dillon, col. 9, lines 2-3), and to have included a main layer, such as lens elements 7 and/or 8 as taught by Dillon, so that primer elements 5, 6 can correspond closely to lens element 7 and the peaks and valleys of relief pattern 11, while forming optically smooth outer surface 12 (Dillon, col. 9, lines 33-36).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Yutaka in view of Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 6, and Dillon further discloses wherein the main layer includes at least one of a smoothing layer (Dillon discloses primer element 5 allows lens element 7 to correspond very closely, if not perfectly, to the peaks and valleys of relief pattern 11, while at the same time forming optically smooth outer surface 12, col. 9 lines 33-36, thereby disclosing the equivalent of a smoothing layer), a photochromic layer, and a hard coat layer.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Yutaka in view of Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 6, and Dillon further discloses wherein the main layer has a thickness of 20 to 200 mm (Dillon discloses the thickness of lens element 7 is approximately 0.1-0.2 millimeters, col. 19, lines 31-32, where 0.2 millimeters is equal to 200 mm).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Dillon and Matsuo et al. US PGPub 2017/0351009 A1 (hereinafter, “Matsuo”).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Yutaka discloses the method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article according to claim 14, but Yutaka does not disclose the method further comprising: providing a primer layer on a substrate so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate (as noted above, Yutaka does not disclose primer layers or the equivalent), and Yutaka does not disclose sprinkling the glossy particles on the primer layer, and applying a raw material liquid of a main layer so as to cover the glossy particles.
In the same field of invention, Dillon discloses a method further comprising: providing a primer layer on a substrate so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate (Dillon in Fig. 2 shows primer elements 5 and 6 on outer and inner surfaces of lens element 3, col. 8 lines 44-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dillon to the disclosure of Yutaka and included a primer layer, such as primer elements 5 and 6 as taught by Dillon, to provide a surface for other optical elements to adhere (Dillon, col. 9, lines 2-3).
The prior art combination of Yutaka in view of Dillon does not disclose sprinkling the glossy particles on the primer layer, nor does the prior art combination disclose applying a raw material liquid of a main layer so as to cover the glossy particles.
In a related field of invention, Matsuo teaches a method for manufacturing a sheet-form transparent molding comprises a forming step of a transparent light scattering layer and of a transparent reflection layer comprising a layering step when a transparent reflection layer is layered, and the forming step of the transparent light scattering layer can be done by a coating method (par. [0084] thereof), which is as best understood by the Examiner functionally equivalent to sprinkling the microparticles on the primer layer, and Matsuo also teaches a layering process to further layer a transparent reflection layer on the sheet-form transparent light scattering layer where the method to layer the transparent reflection layer is not particularly limited and can be performed by a conventionally known method, such as by deposition, sputtering, or coating (par. [0091] thereof), equivalent to applying a raw material liquid of a main layer so as to cover the glossy particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Matsuo to the disclosure of Yutaka and adopted a deposition method for layering the optical article of Yutaka, as Matsuo teaches deposition is a feasible and successful method for making a microparticle-containing layer (Matsuo, par. [0091]).
Claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon in view of Matsuo.
Regarding independent claim 1, Dillon discloses a spectacle optical article (Fig. 1A shows sunglasses 14, col. 8 lines 44-45, equivalent to a spectacle optical article) comprising an outer surface that is a surface on an object side and an inner surface that is a surface on an eyeball side (Fig. 3 shows how light rays 25 are transmitted through lens 17 of sunglasses 14 to the eyes of the wearer, col. 10 lines 32-34, with an observer side of lens and a wearer side of lens labeled, equivalent to outer and inner surfaces of sunglasses 14).
Dillon does not disclose the spectacle optical article containing glossy particles with particle diameters of 50 to 150 mm between the outer surface and the inner surface.
In a related field of invention, Matsuo discloses a transparent sheet-form molding, shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with transparent light scattering layer 11 consisting of bright flake-form microparticles 12 dispersed in a resin 14, and a transparent reflection layer 15 (pars. [0042] and [0049] thereof). Matsuo teaches the average diameter of the primary particles of the bright flake-form microparticles is preferably from 0.01 μm to 100 μm (par. [0055] thereof), overlapping the claimed range.
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation, MPEP 2131.03(II). In this case, Matsuo discloses a range of particle sizes from 0.01 μm to 100 μm, overlapping the claimed range of 50 μm to 150 μm. The instant application does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0.01 μm to 100 μm. The entire range of particle sizes would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Matsuo to the disclosure of Dillon and included a light scattering layer containing microparticles, such as the light scattering layer 11 as taught by Matsuo, between lens elements 7 and 8 of Dillon, to improve transmission visibility and viewing angles (Matsuo, par. [0043]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Dillon in view of Matsuo (hereinafter, “modified Dillon”) discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Matsuo further discloses the spectacle optical article further comprising a glossy particle-containing layer in which the glossy particles are accommodated (Matsuo discloses the transparent light scattering layer comprises a resin and bright flake-form microparticles, par. [0049])
The prior art combination does not specifically disclose the glossy particle-containing layer having a thickness 1.5 times a maximum particle diameter of the glossy particles, but Matsuo teaches the thickness of the sheet-form transparent molding is not particularly limited and that the thickness is preferably from 0.1 µm to 20 mm, more preferably from 0.2 µm to 15 mm, and still preferably from 1 µm to 10 mm (par. [0048] thereof).
Since Matsuo discloses a maximum particle diameter of 100 μm, the transparent light scattering layer 11 would have to be 150 μm thick to satisfy the limitation. Matsuo teaches a most preferable range of thicknesses from 1 µm to 10 mm, and a thickness of 150 μm falls within this range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Matsuo to the disclosure of Dillon and adjusted the thickness of the transparent light scattering layer containing the bright flake-form microparticles so as to optimize transparency (Matsuo, par. [0051]). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In this case, a person of ordinary skill would seek to optimize the transparency of the transparent light scattering layer and with Matsuo disclosing a range of thicknesses for the glossy particle-containing layer would be able to find an optimum value for the thickness from the disclosed range of the prior art.
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 2, and Matsuo further discloses the optical article further comprising a cover layer provided to cover the glossy particle-containing layer (Matsuo discloses a two-ply constitution comprising the light scattering layer 11 and a transparent reflection layer 15, par. [0042] thereof, where layer 15 is equivalent to a cover layer).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according Matsuo discloses light scattering layer 11 containing bright flake-form microparticles 12 dispersed in a resin 14 pars. [0042] and [0049] thereof).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Dillon and Matsuo both further disclose the optical article further comprising: a substrate (Dillon in Fig. 2 depicts the various layers of sunglasses 14, any one of which could be considered equivalent to a substrate, such as lens element 3, col. 8 line 47, and Matsuo discloses light scattering layer 11 containing bright flake-form microparticles 12 dispersed in a resin 14 pars. [0042] and [0049] thereof); and an antireflection layer provided so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate (Dillon discloses anti-reflection coatings 21 and 22 covering outermost and innermost surfaces, col. 8, lines 49-51).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Dillon further discloses the article further comprising: a substrate (Dillon in Fig. 2 depicts the various layers of sunglasses 14, any one of which could be considered equivalent to a substrate, such as lens element 3, col. 8 line 47); a primer layer (Dillon discloses primer elements 5 and 6, col. 8 line 48) provided so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of the substrate (Dillon in Fig. 2 shows primer elements 5 and 6 on outer and inner surfaces of lens element 3, col. 8 lines 44-55); and a main layer provided so as to cover the primer layer (Dillon discloses lens elements 7 and 8, col. 8 line 49, where lens elements 7 and 8 cover primer elements 5 and 6 as shown in Fig. 2), wherein a glossy particle-containing layer in which the glossy particles are accommodated in a layer having a thickness of 1.5 times a maximum particle diameter of the glossy particles (Matsuo discloses the transparent light scattering layer comprises a resin and bright flake-form microparticles, par. [0049]) includes the glossy particles and at least one of the primer layer and the main layer (as noted in claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teachings of Matsuo to the disclosure of Dillon and included a light scattering layer containing microparticles, such as the light scattering layer 11 as taught by Matsuo, between lens elements 7 and 8 of Dillon, to improve transmission visibility and viewing angles as taught by Matsuo in at least par. [0043], therefore the prior art combination teaches the optical article with a glossy particle-containing layer includes glossy particles and a primer layer), and a cover layer provided to cover the glossy particle-containing layer includes the main layer (Matsuo discloses a two-ply constitution comprising the light scattering layer 11 and a transparent reflection layer 15, par. [0042] thereof, where layer 15 is equivalent to a cover layer, and Dillon discloses lens elements 7 and 8, col. 8 line 49, where lens elements 7 and 8 cover primer elements 5 and 6 as shown in Fig. 2, so the prior art combination teaches the cover layer includes the main layer as recited).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 6, and Dillon further discloses wherein the main layer (as noted above, lens elements 7 and/or 8 disclosed by Dillon are equivalent to main layer) includes at least one of a smoothing layer, a photochromic layer, and a hard coat layer (Dillon discloses primer element 5 allows lens element 7 to correspond very closely, if not perfectly, to the peaks and valleys of relief pattern 11, while at the same time forming optically smooth outer surface 12, col. 9 lines 33-36, thereby disclosing the equivalent of a smoothing layer).
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 6, and Dillon further discloses wherein the main layer has a thickness of 20 to 200 mm (Dillon discloses the thickness of lens element 7 is approximately 0.1-0.2 millimeters, col. 19, lines 31-32, where 0.2 millimeters is equal to 200 mm).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Matsuo further discloses wherein the glossy particles are at least one of particles of metal or particles of an oxide of the metal (Matsuo bright flake-form microparticles are preferably metallic particles selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silver, copper, platinum, gold, titanium, nickel, tin, tin cobalt alloy, indium, chromium, titanium oxide, aluminum, pars. [0014], [0054] thereof), and particles constituting a pearlescent pigment.
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, the spectacle optical article being a spectacle lens, spectacles including the spectacle lens, sunglasses, or goggles (Dillon in Figs. 1A and 1B a pair of sunglasses, col. 8 lines 44-45).
Regarding independent claim 14, Dillon discloses a method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article (Dillon discloses two methods for fabricating a lens in accordance with the spectacle optical article, the insert lens method and base lens method, col. 11 lines 32-34) including an outer surface which is a surface on an object side and an inner surface which is a surface on an eyeball side (Fig. 1A shows sunglasses 14, col. 8 lines 44-45, equivalent to a spectacle optical article and Fig. 3 shows how light rays 25 are transmitted through lens 17 of sunglasses 14 to the eyes of the wearer, col. 10 lines 32-34, with an observer side of lens and a wearer side of lens labeled, equivalent to outer and inner surfaces of sunglasses 14).
Dillon does not disclose the method comprising adding glossy particles having particle diameters of 50 to 150 mm between the outer surface and the inner surface.
In a related field of invention, Matsuo discloses a method to form a transparent sheet-form molding (refer to at least par. [0066] thereof), shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with transparent light scattering layer 11 consisting of bright flake-form microparticles 12 dispersed in a resin 14, and a transparent reflection layer 15 (pars. [0042] and [0049] thereof). Matsuo teaches the average diameter of the primary particles of the bright flake-form microparticles is preferably from 0.01 μm to 100 μm (par. [0055] thereof).
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation, MPEP 2131.03(II). In this case, Matsuo discloses a range of particle sizes from 0.01 μm to 100 μm, overlapping the claimed range of 50 μm to 150 μm. The instant application does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0.01 μm to 100 μm. The entire range of particle sizes would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Matsuo to the disclosure of Dillon and included a light scattering layer containing microparticles, such as the light scattering layer 11 as taught by Matsuo, between lens elements 7 and 8 of Dillon, to improve transmission visibility and viewing angles (Matsuo, par. [0043]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, modified Dillon discloses the method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article according to claim 14, and Matsuo further discloses the method further comprising applying a glossy particle-containing liquid so as to cover at least one of an outer surface and an inner surface of a substrate (Matsuo discloses a resin forming the transparent light scattering layer, a highly transparent resin is preferably used in order to obtain a sheet-form transparent molding of a high transparency, where thermoplastic resins such as an acrylic resin, an acrylic urethane resin, a polyester acrylate resin, a polyurethane acrylate resin, an epoxy acrylate resin, a polyester resin, a polyolefin resin, a urethane resin, an epoxy resin, a polycarbonate resin, a cellulose resin, an acetal resin, a vinyl resin, a polystyrene resin, a polyamide resin, a polyimide resin, a melamine resin, a phenol resin, a silicone resin, a polyarylate resin, a polyvinyl alcohol resin, a polyvinyl chloride resin, a poly sulfone resin, and a fluorocarbon resin; a thermoset resin; an ionizing radiation-curable resin; or the like can be used, par. [0051] thereof, where Examiner understands a resin to be a viscous liquid, and the prior art combination of Dillon in view of Matsuo teaches the covering of a substrate with the glossy particle-containing resin, where Dillon teaches a substrate in Fig. 2 as lens element 3, col. 8 line 47, and Matsuo discloses light scattering layer 11 containing bright flake-form microparticles 12 dispersed in a resin 14, pars. [0042] and [0049] thereof).
Regarding dependent claim 16, modified Dillon discloses the method for manufacturing a spectacle optical article according to Dillon in Fig. 2 shows primer elements 5 and 6 on outer and inner surfaces of lens element 3, col. 8 lines 44-55); and Matsuo further discloses sprinkling the glossy particles on the primer layer (Matsuo teaches a method for manufacturing a sheet-form transparent molding comprises a forming step of a transparent light scattering layer and of a transparent reflection layer comprising a layering step when a transparent reflection layer is layered, and the forming step of the transparent light scattering layer can be done by a coating method, par. [0084] thereof, which is as best understood by the Examiner functionally equivalent to sprinkling the microparticles on the primer layer); and applying a raw material liquid of a main layer so as to cover the glossy particles (Matsuo teaches a layering process to further layer a transparent reflection layer on the sheet-form transparent light scattering layer where the method to layer the transparent reflection layer is not particularly limited and can be performed by a conventionally known method, such as by deposition, sputtering, or coating, par. [0091] thereof).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon in view of Matsuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Ayguavives et al. US PGPub 2020/0400974 A1 (hereinafter, “de Ayguavives”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to Dillon discloses in Fig. 14 a basic lens fabricated using a colored insert lens element 3, where the only difference between the basic lens of Fig. 14 and the lens 17 of Fig. 2 is the insert lens element 3, where the insert lens element 3 of Fig. 14 is fabricated of colored plastic material, col. 16 line 62 to col. 17 line 2, i.e., the plastic insert is dyed).
Dillon does not disclose wherein a mean transmittance of a line-of-sight passing portion is 8% or more. However, Dillon in Fig. 3 shows light rays 25 passing through lens 17 to the eyes of the wearer (col. 10 lines 32-34), therefore Dillon discloses a transmittance of greater than 0%, as expected and required for the sunglasses 14 disclosed by Dillon to function as intended.
In the same field of invention, de Ayguavives discloses ophthalmic tinted glass 10, shown in at least Fig. 1a thereof, with embodiments having transmittance over a wavelength range from 465 nm to 495 nm that is higher than 60% and transmittance over a wavelength range from 465 nm to 495 nm that is higher than 75% (par. [0038] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of de Ayguavives to the disclosure of Dillon and selected the lens and the layers of sunglasses 14 such that the mean transmittance value over the wavelength range from 460 nm to 510 nm, or from 465 nm to 495 nm, is higher than 30%, preferably higher than 40%, more preferably higher than or equal to 48%, so that enough medium-blue light intensity enters into the wearer's eye to ensure that biological, hormonal and behavioral functions are not altered, and related circadian rhythms are maintained (de Ayguavives, par. [0019]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Dillon further discloses the spectacle optical article being a transparent lens (Dillon discloses a lens structure for sunglasses 14 which is optically transparent from the wearer's point of view, col. 6, lines 27-30),
Dillon does not disclose wherein a mean transmittance of a line-of-sight passing portion is 60% or more. However, Dillon in Fig. 3 shows light rays 25 passing through lens 17 to the eyes of the wearer (col. 10 lines 32-34), therefore Dillon discloses a transmittance of greater than 0%, as expected and required for the sunglasses 14 disclosed by Dillon to function as intended.
In the same field of invention, de Ayguavives discloses ophthalmic tinted glass 10, shown in at least Fig. 1a thereof, with possible embodiments having transmittance over a wavelength range from 465 nm to 495 nm that is higher than 60% and transmittance over a wavelength range from 465 nm to 495 nm that is higher than 75% (par. [0038] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of de Ayguavives to the disclosure of Dillon and selected the base eyeglass and the first layered structure such that the mean transmittance value of the tinted glass over the wavelength range from 460 nm to 510 nm, or from 465 nm to 495 nm, is higher than 30%, preferably higher than 40%, more preferably higher than or equal to 48%, so that enough medium-blue light intensity enters into the wearer's eye to ensure that biological, hormonal and behavioral functions are not altered, and related circadian rhythms are maintained (de Ayguavives, par. [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Regarding dependent claim 13, modified Dillon discloses the spectacle optical article according to claim 1, and Matsuo further discloses wherein the glossy particles are unevenly distributed between the outer surface and the inner surface of the spectacle optical article (Matsuo in Fig. 1 shows microparticles 11 and 12 distributed in an uneven manner throughout resin 11 between the outer and inner surfaces, par. [0042] thereof), but the prior art combination does not disclose the glossy particles are unevenly distributed in a peripheral portion when the spectacle optical article is viewed from front (Dillon and Matsuo are silent with respect to distribution of microparticles in the peripheral regions of the optical articles disclosed therein, and Yutaka does not teach or suggest the distribution of particles 521 as being uneven in the peripheral regions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872