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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending.
Claim 5 have been canceled by the applicants.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended by the applicants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are based upon the latest amendment wherein, the applicants have amended parent claim 1 with additional features that includes incorporating features from now canceled claim 5. Further, additional features to the claim include the emphasis of microstructures of lenslets.
It is noted that the amendment to claim 1 includes incorporating teachings from claim 5 and additional limitations. This include the additional step of depositing a water or water-based activating liquid which is different from the previous limitation from original claim 5 that the adhesive is water. Whereupon, there appears to be a new matter issue arising from the newly amended claims in regards to these additional new elements, see rejection below.
In the consideration of the arguments by the applicants based upon the latest amended claims, it appears to be focused upon the teachings from JIANG and of the WEBER references. It is noted that there includes teaching of the JIANG’611 in the original rejection from the teachings of the latex layer and further of the teachings microstructures. In consideration of the latest amendment to the claims, it is noted that the JIANG’611 reference having the additional features in regards to the application of a water based activating liquid upon the lens substrate or on the dry latex layer formed upon the lens substrate surface, see [0102], and of heating the water, see claim 30 of JIANG’611, and wherein, the layer can be removed, and that the carrier can be microstructured film, see [0109].
In regards to the arguments concerning the microstructures including lenslets, it is noted that the teaching in the instant application is that the lenslets can be Fresnel structures, see [0024], page 8, lines 19-20. Whereupon, the arguments over the JIANG reference is noted but currently the claimed microstructure definition defined by the application would be encompassed by the features taught in JIANG.
The rejection of the claims are presented below in regards to the latest claimed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added step of claim 1 wherein there is a lens and adhesive layer coated thereon, and whereupon the new additional limitation of depositing of the water or water-based activating liquid and wherein seen as a separate element from the adhesive layer. This compared to the teaching by the original claims and instant specification of the adhesive layer being water.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JIANG (EP 2288489 B1, see IDS) in view of JIANG’611 (US 2006/213611 A1, see IDS).
JIANG teaches in ([0074], [0077]-[0079], [0085], [0086], [0089], [0090], [0124]; fig 3A-3E):
Re: 1, JIANG teaches of a method of forming an optical lens (fig 3E), comprising:
providing a lens (1'') having microstructures (2'') on a surface thereof and an
adhesive layer coated thereon (6'');
pressing a coating stack (7), via a carrier layer (4'') attached to a first surface of
the coating stack (7, [0077-0079]) by a release coating ([0074]), against the
adhesive layer (6''), a second surface of the coating stack (7) being in contact
with the adhesive layer (6''); and
curing ([0084, 0085]) the adhesive layer (6'') and removing (fig 3Q-3E) the
carrier layer (4'') from the first surface of the coating stack (7) via the release
coating ([0074]), wherein
a thickness (fig 3E; [0089, 0090]) of the adhesive layer is greater than a depth
([0089], [0090]) of the microstructures (2'') on the surface of the lens (1'').
Regarding of depositing a water or water based activating liquid upon the surface of the microstructures and of a latex layer being in contact with the water or water based activating liquid and of heating the water/water based activating liquid. JIANG itself does not teach of the latex coating in the main body of the description.
However, in JIANG there is teaching in the background information [0009], that teaches of US 2006/0213611 of a coating that can be done via dry latex and further activated by aqueous composition. Further in JIANG’611, there is teaching of the application of a water based activating liquid upon the lens substrate or on the dry latex layer formed upon the lens substrate surface, see [0102], and of heating the water, see claim 30 of JIANG’611, and wherein, the layer can be removed, and that the carrier can be microstructured film, see [0109].
Whereupon, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified JIANG with the latex coating and water based activating liquid as taught by JIANG’611 as known application of the layers to the optical lens, as this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the coating stack is a hard multi-coat stack.
(see teaching by JIANG of a stack of coatings 7, see [0122], see Figs. 3A-3E.)
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the adhesive layer is UV-visible radiation sensitive and the adhesive layer is cured with UV-visible actinic radiation.
(see JIANG, [0128] regarding UV curable adhesive composition, and [0129] of UV curable glue.)
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein adhesive is temperature sensitive and the adhesive layer is cured at high temperature.
(see JIANG of heat curing via temperature ranges, see [0085], via oven, hot water bath, IR heat source, or microwave oven.)
Re 6 (upon 5), wherein the adhesive layer is cured by pressing the coating stack against the adhesive layer for a predetermined length of time, the predetermined length of time being determined by a length of time needed for the latex layer to absorb the water and for the water to evaporate.
See teaching by JIANG’611 of the curing temperature and time and use of a water based activating liquid, see [0027-0031].
Re 7 (upon 6), wherein curing the adhesive layer further comprises heating the water to a predetermined temperature to increase water uptake into the latex layer and to expedite evaporation of water.
See teaching by JIAN’611 regarding the heating step upon the water based activating liquid, see [0027-0031].
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein the adhesive layer includes a photochromic dye configured to absorb a predetermined wavelength range of electromagnetic radiation.
See JIANG of dye coating, and also photochromic coating, see [0077]. Which are separate teachings. Further, see JIANG’611 of photochromic coating, dye, see claim 43.
Whereupon, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified JIANG with the latex coating as taught by JIANG’611 as known application of the layers to the optical lens, as this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 9 (upon 1), wherein a refractive index of the adhesive layer is different from a refractive index of the lens.
(see JIANG, [0095].)
Re 10 (upon 1), further comprising forming the coating stack and the carrier layer by spin coating the release coating onto a surface of the carrier layer, the surface of the carrier layer being concave.
(see JIANG of the concave surface, see [0121].)
Re 12 (upon 1), further comprising forming the coating stack and the carrier layer by spin coating the release coating onto a surface of the carrier layer, the surface of the carrier layer being convex.
(see teaching of convex surface in JIANG [0026] and [0122].)
Re 15, JIANG teaches of an optical element (fig 3E) obtained according to the method of claims 1 (see teaching for claim 1 above), wherein the optical element is an ophthalmic lens ([0124]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG in view of JIANG’611 as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of US 2019/0137660 A1 (DING).
Re 11 (upon 10), further comprising forming the coating stack and the carrier layer by vacuum depositing a hydrophobic topcoat onto the release coating, vacuum depositing an anti-reflective coating onto the hydrophobic topcoat, spin coating a hardcoat solution onto the anti-reflective coating, spin coating a latex primer solution onto the hardcoat solution and curing the hardcoat solution and the latex primer solution.
The JIANG reference does not specifically teach of the latex primer solution other than in the background information portion, the JIANG’611 reference does teach of latex.
Whereupon, the DING reference provides further teaching of applying for a latex primer [0131], spin-coating and curing, see [0132], depositing of an abrasion-resistant coating and/or the scratch-resistant coating, and further applying the primer coating for improvement of impact resistance and/or the adhesion of the subsequent layers in the final product, see [0130], and of the top coat, see [0133] that includes antireflective coating. Whereupon the various layers and teachings encompasses the claimed method of claim 11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the layer applications of JIANG with the coating teachings of DING as known application of the layers to the optical lens, as this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 19903 as being unpatentable over JIANG in view of JIANG’611 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0391337 A1 (SATO).
Re 13 (upon 1), wherein JIANG does not specifically teach of providing the lens with the surface further comprises applying a corona treatment to the surface before applying the adhesive layer to the surface.
However, in the lens forming arts, SATO teaches of surface treatment of glass substrate including UV ozone cleaning, corona discharge treatment, and plasma treatment and then spin-coated with a silane coupling agent, see [0066] as it allows for improved adhesion to the UV curable resin for molding the vortex profile.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lens surface of JIANG with corona treatment as taught by SATO as known treatment for improving the adhesion of the UV curable resin.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG in view of JIANG’611 as applied to claim 1 above.
Re 14 (upon 1), wherein a depth of the microstructures on the surface of the lens is 0.1 micrometer to 10 micrometers and a thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.2 micrometer to 50 micrometers.
See in JIANG the teaching of Fresnel surface of lens that include height of 28 micrometers between successive zones and of the grating pitches at 100-211 nm, see JIANG [0140]. And of the final adhesive layer less than 100 micrometers, see background JIANG [0006].)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, the references cited generally pertains to forming layers and having water based layer near a latex layer.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights