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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurice et al. (US 2019/0171034 A1).
Re claim 8, Maurice et al. discloses a device comprising: an optical base material (21) with an optical surface; an anti-reflection film (14-18) coating the optical surface of the optical base material (Fig. 9), the anti-reflection film having a multilayer structure including laminated layers of a low refractive index layer (14, 17: SiO2; paragraph 146) and a high refractive index layer (layer (16, 18: ZrO2, paragraph 0146) and the anti-reflection film including a reactive layer (15; SnO2) that has a relatively higher reactivity to ultrashort pulse laser irradiation than other layers included in the anti-reflection film (paragraph 0067; 0075; 0083), wherein a removed portion (22) is a portion resulting from at least partially removing a predetermined layer including an outermost layer (14) of the multilayer structure, to which processing is applied so as to be visually recognized by visible light, due to exposure of the underlying high refractive index layer (16) below the reactive layer (15) or exposure of the partially remained reactive layer (15) (paragraph 0067).
Re claim 9, Maurice et al. discloses the device wherein the high refractive index layer (16) exposed by removing the low refractive index layer (14) is constituted so that a ratio t1/t2 of a thickness tl at a removed portion of the low refractive index layer to a thickness t2 at a non-removed portion of the low refractive index layer falls within a range of 0.90 or more and 1.00 or less. Layer (16) has a thickness at a non-removed portion of the low refractive index layer that is equal to a thickness at a removed portion of the low refractive index layer.
Re claim 10, Maurice et al. discloses the device wherein the processing for visually recognized the reactive layer is a processing for the reactive layer to be visible from a processing surface side of the optical member subjected to processing, and is also visible from a back side of the processing surface (paragraph 0055).
Re claim 11, as to the functional claim limitation, “wherein visibility in the processing for visually recognized the reactive layer changes depending on a relative position or an angle of an observer and an illumination light with respect to the optical member”, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (MPEP 2114). Maurice et al. discloses all the claimed structural limitation, and therefore is capable of performing the claimed function.
Re claim 12, Maurice et al. discloses the device wherein the optical member is a spectacle lens (paragraph 0002).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurice et al. in view of Petsch et al. (US 2010/0141729 A1).
Re claim 1, Maurice et al. discloses a method comprising: applying desired laser (paragraph 0067) processing to an anti-reflection film (14-18) formed to coat an optical surface of an optical base material (21) and having a multilayer structure including laminated layers of a low refractive index layer (14, 17: SiO2; paragraph 146) and a high refractive index layer (16, 18: ZrO2, paragraph 0146), by irradiating the anti-reflection film (14-18) with ultrashort pulse laser (paragraph 0075); and partially removing a predetermined layer including an outermost layer of the multilayer structure (paragraph 167), the anti-reflection film (14-18) including a reactive layer (15; SnO2) that is relatively more reactive to irradiation with the ultrashort pulse laser than other layers included in the multilayer structure (paragraph 0067; 0075; 0083), wherein the reactive layer is subjected to the laser processing so as to be visually recognizable by visible light by being at least partially removed (paragraph 0067). Maurice et al. does not disclose the method wherein the ultrashort pulse laser has a pulse width of 10 femtoseconds or more and less than 100 picoseconds.
Petsch et al. discloses a method wherein ultrashort lasers are capable of emitting laser pulses with typical pulse lengths in the range of picosecond (ps) or in the range of femtoseconds (fs) (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the method wherein the ultrashort pulse laser has a pulse width in the range of 10 femtoseconds or more and less than 100 picoseconds since ultrashort pulse lasers in the range of picosecond or in the range of femtoseconds are “typical pulse lengths” (paragraph 0093). Between 10 femtoseconds and 100 pic seconds would comprise a value of in a range of picoseconds and femtoseconds. Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 2, Maurice et al. discloses the method wherein in the removal of the reactive layer, the reactive layer disappears by subliming or evaporating at least partially in a thickness direction, and the disappearance of the reactive layer causes other overlying layer above the reactive layer also to be removed (paragraph 0067).
Re claim 3, Maurice et al. disclose the method wherein a high refractive index layer (16) included in the multilayer structure is exposed at an irradiated portion where the reactive layer is removed by the irradiation (paragraph 0067; Fig. 9, ref. 16’).
Re claims 4 and 5, Maurice et al. discloses the method wherein the reactive layer (15) is a conductive layer having higher conductivity than other layer constituting the multilayer structure. SnO2 has a higher conductivity than SiO2.
Re claim 6, Maurice et al. discloses the method wherein the optical member is a spectacle lens (paragraph 0002).
Re claim 7, Maurice et al. does not disclose the method wherein the ultrashort pulse laser has a pulse width of 0.1 picosecond or more and less than 50 picoseconds.
Petsch et al. discloses a method wherein ultrashort lasers are capable of emitting laser pulses with typical pulse lengths in the range of picosecond (ps) or in the range of femtoseconds (fs) (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the method wherein the ultrashort pulse laser has a pulse width of 0.1 picosecond or more and less than 50 picoseconds since ultrashort pulse lasers are “typical pulse lengths”. Between 0.1 and 50 picoseconds would comprise a value of in a range of picoseconds and femtoseconds. Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 13, Maurice et al. discloses a method comprising: an optical base material (21) with an optical surface; an anti-reflection film (14-18) coating the optical surface of the optical base material (Fig. 9), the anti-reflection film having a multilayer structure including laminated layers of a low refractive index layer (14, 17: SiO2; paragraph 146) and a high refractive index layer (layer (16, 18: ZrO2, paragraph 0146) and the anti-reflection film including a reactive layer (15; SnO2) that has a relatively higher reactivity to ultrashort pulse laser irradiation than other layers included in the anti-reflection film (paragraph 0067; 0075; 0083), wherein a removed portion (22) is a portion resulting from at least partially removing a predetermined layer including an outermost layer (14) of the multilayer structure, to which processing is applied so as to be visually recognized by visible light, due to exposure of the underlying high refractive index layer (16) below the reactive layer (15) or exposure of the partially remained reactive layer (15) (paragraph 0067) are fitted into a frame (paragraph 0049).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871