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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on August 12, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 7 and 9.
Claims 1-10 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the plurality of anti-blue light layers are formed by dying the lens base material using a thermal dyeing method”. That is confusing and indefinite since the anti-blue light layers and the lens base material are of different material and layer. It is not clear how could the anti-blue layers be formed by dying the lens base material? This feature seems to be contradicted with the recitation of “a lens base material and a plurality of anti-blue light layers” recited in the earlier part of the claim. Also, it is not clear how can a plurality of layers be formed by simply dying process?
Claim 7 has been amended to recite the phrase “forming an anti-blue light layer at both sides of a lens base material by sequentially immersing the lens material in a different dyeing liquid” that is confusing and indefinite. It is not clear how could the anti-blue light layer be formed on the lens base material by immersing the lens base material in the dyeing liquids. It is not clear if the lens base material (2, Figure 1 of the instant application) and the anti-blue layer (4) are the same layer or different layer?
The scopes of are unclear.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Yan et al (US 2024/0310559 A1) in view of a Chinese patent issued to Wang et al (CN 109445129 A) and US patent application publication by Trottier-Lapointe et al (US 2021/0165248 A) and US patent application publication by Hsu (US 2021/0080753 A1) .
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Yan et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a multifunctional VR lens serves as the anti-blue light lens device that is comprised of a lens base (1, Figure 1), a plurality of multifunctional hard layers (2) respectively disposed on both sides of the base material, and a plurality of multifunctional layer (3) disposed respectively on one side of the plurality of the multifunctional hard layer, (please see Figure 1).
Yan et al teaches that each of the plurality of multifunctional hard layers (2) comprises an anti-blue performance that serves as an anti-blue layer, which means to include a plurality of anti-blue layers, (please see paragraph [0038] to [0039]).
Yan et al teaches that each of the plurality of multifunctional layers (3) comprises a light anti-reflection film and a waterproof film, (please see paragraph [0032]). This means the lens device comprises a plurality of light anti-reflection films or light reducing layers and a plurality of waterproof films.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Yan et al teaches that the multifunctional hard layer (2) is a hard layer with anti-blue light performance, it does not teach explicitly to comprise a separate anti-blue layer and a harden layer. Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-blue lens that is comprised of an anti-blue light layer (4, Figure 1) and a hard coat layer (3). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to modify the anti-blue lens device to alternatively make the multifunctional hard layer of Yan et al to include an anti-blue layer and a hard coat layer for the benefit of using different layer structure for the anti-blue lens device. It is also obvious to one skilled in the art to make the anti-blue light layer to be disposed on the lens material and the hard coat layer to be disposed at the surface of the anti-blue light layer as an alternative design for the layer structure to achieve the same anti-blue light and hard coat protection functions.
Yan et al teaches that each of the plurality of multifunctional layers (3) comprises a light anti-reflection film, serves as the light reducing layers and a waterproof film, (please see paragraph [0032]). Yan et al teaches that the method steps of forming the multifunctional layer is in the order of forming the anti-reflective or light reducing layer and forming the waterproof layer, (please see paragraph [0036]). This means it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to make the anti-reflection or light reducing layer is disposed on one side of the hard layer and the waterproof layer is disposed on one side of the light reducing layer, for the benefit of making the waterproof layer be disposed at the outermost surface to provide waterproof function to the anti-blue lens device.
Trottier-Lapointe et al teaches that a blue-cut filter may appear to be yellow or green or yellow-green color, (please see paragraph [0120]). One skilled in the art would therefore apply the teachings of Trottier-Lapointe et al to make the anti-blue layer is achieved by making the layer with yellow-green color tinted and therefore exhibits a yellow-green color.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the plurality of anti-blue light layers are formed by dying the lens base material using a thermal dyeing method”.
These references do not teach such explicitly. However, this features is product-by-process limitation that is not patentable since the product does not differentiate the final product of the cited reference, (please see MPEP 2107.05(p)).
Furthermore, Hsu in the same field of endeavor teaches a blue light blocker. Hsu et al teaches that the anti-blue layer or the blue light blocker is made by sequentially dye the base layer with different liquid dye solutions at temperature 40-1000 C, (please see paragraphs [0039], [0050], [0080]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hsu to use art well-known dying method to dye the anti-blue layers.
With regard to claim 2, Yan et al teaches that the lens base material of the multifunctional VR lens is a multifunctional resin base, (please see paragraph [0007]), which may comprise refractive power, (please see paragraph [0004]).
With regard to claim 3, Yan et al in light of Trottier-Lapointe et al teaches that the anti-blue layer exhibits a yellow-green color. Although these references do not teach explicitly that the color concentration is 15-25% such feature is either implicitly included to exhibit the yellow green color or an obvious modification of one skilled in the art to make the color has desired appearance.
With regard to claim 4, these references do not teach explicitly that the lens device is to filter about 60% or more of short wave-visible blue light between 440 nm and 460 nm. Hsu in the same field of endeavor teaches a blue light blocker that has a spectrum output (700A, Figure 7A) that would filter light that is more than 60% in the blue light between 440 nm and 460 nm, (please see Figure 7A). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hsu to make the anti-blue light layer is capable of filtering light more than 60% in the wavelength range of 440 nm to 460 nm for the benefit of allowing the anti-blue layer has the desired spectrum output.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Hsu et al teaches that the anti-blue layer or the blue light blocker is made by sequentially dye the base layer with different liquid dye solutions at temperature 40-1000 C, (please see paragraphs [0039], [0050], [0080]). Furthermore, the features recited in the claims are product-by-process limitations that are not patentable since the product does not differentiate the final product of the cited reference, (please see MPEP 2107.05(p)).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Yan et al (US 2014/0310559 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Hsu (US 2021/0080753 A1), Chinese patent issued to Wang et al (CN 109445129 A) and US patent application publication by Trottier-Lapointe et al (US 2021/0165248 A).
Claim 7 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
Yan et al teaches, with regard to claim 7, a method for making a multifunctional VR lens that serves as the anti-blue light lens device, wherein the method comprises the step of forming a multifunctional hard layer (2, Figure 1), that includes an anti-blue light performance layer, on a lens base (1, Figure 1) by using an anti-blue toner mixing in an acrylate layer and performing a surface hardening treatment, implicitly at required high temperature, to form multifunctional hard layer with anti-blue light performance, (please see paragraph [0034] and [0035]). Yan et al further teaches that the method comprises the steps of forming an anti-reflection layer serves as the light reducing layer by depositing the anti-reflection layer using vacuum plating method, which known in the art as vacuum evaporation method and forming a waterproof layer by depositing a waterproof material using vacuum plating method which known in the art as vacuum evaporation method to obtain the anti-blue lens device, (please see paragraph [0036]).
This reference has met all the limitations of claims. Yan et al teaches the anti-blue layer is formed by mixing the anti-blue toner into acrylate base material but does not teach explicitly by sequentially immerse the lens base material in different dyeing liquids. Hsu in the same field of endeavor teaches that anti-blue light layer or blue light blocker may be formed by immersing the base material into different and therefore sequentially into dyeing liquids, (please see the abstract and paragraph [0050]). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hsu to use art well known method to form the anti-blue light layer.
Yan et al teaches that the multifunctional hard layer (2) is a hard layer with anti-blue light performance, it does not teach explicitly to comprise a separate anti-blue layer and a harden layer. Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-blue lens that is comprised of an anti-blue light layer (4, Figure 1) and a hard coat layer (3). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to modify the anti-blue lens device to alternatively make the multifunctional hard layer of Yan et al to include an anti-blue layer and a hard coat layer for the benefit of using different layer structure for the anti-blue lens device. It is also obvious to one skilled in the art to make the anti-blue light layer to be disposed on the lens material and the hard coat layer to be disposed at the surface of the anti-blue light layer as an alternative design for the layer structure to achieve the same anti-blue light and hard coat protection functions.
Yan et al teaches that the method steps of forming the multifunctional layer is in the order of forming the anti-reflective or light reducing layer and forming the waterproof layer, (please see paragraph [0036]). This means it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to make the anti-reflection or light reducing layer is disposed on one side of the hard layer and the waterproof layer is disposed on one side of the light reducing layer, for the benefit of making the waterproof layer be disposed at the outermost surface to provide waterproof function to the anti-blue lens device.
Trottier-Lapointe et al teaches that a blue-cut filter may appear to be yellow or green or yellow-green color, (please see paragraph [0120]). One skilled in the art would therefore apply the teachings of Trottier-Lapointe et al to make the anti-blue layer is achieved by making the layer with yellow-green color tinted and therefore exhibits a yellow-green color.
Claim 7 has been amended to include the phrase “in step S1 the anti-blue light layer is formed by dyeing the lens base material using a thermal dying method”.
Hsu et al teaches that the anti-blue layer or the blue light blocker is made by sequentially dye the base layer with different liquid dye solutions at temperature 40-1000 C, (please see paragraphs [0039], [0050], [0080])
With regard to claim 8, Hsu teaches the blue light blocker that has a spectrum output (700A, Figure 7A) that would filter light that is more than 60% in the blue light between 440 nm and 460 nm, (please see Figure 7A).
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Hsu et al teaches that the anti-blue layer or the blue light blocker is made by sequentially dye the base layer with different liquid dye solutions at temperature 40-1000 C, (please see paragraphs [0039], [0050], [0080]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The applicant is respectfully noted that the anti-blue layers (3, Figure 1 of the instant application) is different and separated from the lens base material (2), so it is impossible to form the anti-blue layers by “dyeing the lens base material”.
The cited Hsu reference teaches specifically that the well-known technologies for forming anti-blue coating including dyeing and dipping, (please see paragraph [0080]) which implicitly means dipping or immersing the base material to dye solution. It is note that the lens base material is different from the anti-blue layer so the anti-blue layer cannot be formed by dyeing the lens base material.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., immersing the lens in the dyeing liquid, taken out, washed to remove excess dyeing liquid, immersing in the next dyeing liquid) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights