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.
(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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190377116 A1 to Buck.
Regarding Claim 10. Buck discloses a method of making a multi-layered mesogen coatings comprising: providing a thin film having a controlled retardation (Fig. 2 substrate 210); coating the thin film with an alignment layer; creating an alignment information on the coating of the alignment layer (para 29); coating a mesogen layer onto one side of the alignment layer (See para 31); annealing the thin film containing the mesogen layer in an oven (para 31, it is noted the annealing with heat in an oven is well known in the art); curing the mesogen layer of the thin film (See para 31); and coating at least a second mesogen layer onto the cured mesogen layer of the thin film to form a bi-layered mesogen coatings and annealing (See para 31) and curing the second mesogen layer; and repeating the steps of coating, annealing and curing of mesogen coatings to form the multi-layered mesogen coatings (See para 31); wherein coating at least said second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film further comprises coating first an interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film and coating next said second mesogen layer onto said interstitial layer (See para 31).
Regarding Claim 11. Buck further discloses the multi-layered mesogen coatings are used for ophthalmic lenses (See para 60. It is noted that this limitation does not further limit the method of making the coating, but rather an intended use of the final product).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190377116 A1 to Buck as applied to claim 10 in view of US 20170324067 A1 to Hirakata et al.
Regarding Claim 12. As sated above Buck discloses all limitations of base claim 10.
Buck does not specifically disclose that the thin film with the alignment layer further comprises coating the thin film with components comprising a polyurethane dispersion, silanes, silica or zirconia.
However, Hirakata discloses that the thin film with the alignment layer further comprises coating the thin film with components comprising a polyurethane dispersion, silanes, silica or zirconia (See para 123), as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the thin film with the alignment layer further comprises coating the thin film with components comprising a polyurethane dispersion, silanes, silica or zirconia.
Regarding Claim 13. Hirakata further discloses the alignment information on the coating of the alignment layer further comprises rubbing the alignment layer unidirectionally (para 120).
Buck discloses a method of making a multi-layered mesogen coatings comprising: providing a thin film having a controlled retardation (Fig. 2 substrate 210); coating the thin film with an alignment layer; creating an alignment information on the coating of the alignment layer (para 29); coating a mesogen layer onto one side of the alignment layer (See para 31); annealing the thin film containing the mesogen layer in an oven (para 31, it is noted the annealing with heat in an oven is well known in the art); curing the mesogen layer of the thin film (See para 31); and coating at least a second mesogen layer onto the cured mesogen layer of the thin film to form a bi-layered mesogen coatings and annealing (See para 31) and curing the second mesogen layer; and repeating the steps of coating, annealing and curing of mesogen coatings to form the multi-layered mesogen coatings (See para 31); wherein coating at least said second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film further comprises coating first an interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film and coating next said second mesogen layer onto said interstitial layer (See para 31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, “coating first said interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film comprises coating a polyurethane dispersion onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 3-6 are allowable due to dependency to claim 1.
US 20190377116 A1 to Buck for instance, taken alone or in combination with the prior art of record, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 1 in combination with the all other limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Buck discloses various limitations of base claim 1: a method of making a multi-layered mesogen coatings for ophthalmic lenses comprising: providing a thin film having a controlled retardation (Fig. 2 substrate 210); coating a mesogen layer onto one side of said thin film (See para 31); annealing said thin film containing said mesogen layer in an oven (para 31, it is noted tha annealing with heat in an oven is well known in the art); curing said mesogen layer of said thin film (See para 31); and coating at least a second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film to form a bi-layered mesogen coatings and annealing (See para 31) and curing said second mesogen layer; and repeating the steps of coating, annealing and curing of mesogen coatings to form the multi-layered mesogen coatings for said ophthalmic lenses (See para 31); wherein the coating at least said second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film further comprises coating first an interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film and coating next said second mesogen layer onto said interstitial layer (See para 31).
US 20170324067 A1 to Hirakata et al. also discloses coating the thin film with an alignment layer having components comprising a polyurethane dispersion, silanes, silica or zirconia (para 123); creating an alignment information on the coating of the alignment layer by unidirectional rubbing of the alignment layer (See para 120).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose that “coating first said interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film comprises coating a polyurethane dispersion onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film.” Therefore, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, “coating first said interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film comprises coating plasma or corona onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film.” in combination with all the other limitations of claim 2.
Claims 7-9 are allowable due to dependency to claim 2.
US 20190377116 A1 to Buck for instance, taken alone or in combination with the prior art of record, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 2 in combination with all other limitations of claim 2. Specifically, Buck discloses various limitations of base claim 2: a method of making a multi-layered mesogen coatings for ophthalmic lenses comprising: providing a thin film having a controlled retardation (Fig. 2 substrate 210); coating a mesogen layer onto one side of said thin film (See para 31); annealing said thin film containing said mesogen layer in an oven (para 31, it is noted tha annealing with heat in an oven is well known in the art); curing said mesogen layer of said thin film (See para 31); and coating at least a second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film to form a bi-layered mesogen coatings and annealing (See para 31) and curing said second mesogen layer; and repeating the steps of coating, annealing and curing of mesogen coatings to form the multi-layered mesogen coatings for said ophthalmic lenses (See para 31); wherein the coating at least said second mesogen layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film further comprises coating first an interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film and coating next said second mesogen layer onto said interstitial layer (See para 31).
US 20170324067 A1 to Hirakata et al. also discloses coating the thin film with an alignment layer comprising a polyurethane dispersion, silanes, silica or zirconia (para 123); creating an alignment information on the coating of the alignment layer by unidirectional rubbing of the alignment layer (See para 120).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose that “coating first said interstitial layer onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film comprises coating plasma or corona onto said cured mesogen layer of said thin film..” Therefore, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specifications, the recited claim limitations of claim 2.
Claims 14-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871