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 .
Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1-2 are original; and claims 3-9 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 25 November 2024 and 02 April 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Blanckenhagen (US20220107451).
Re: claim 1, Von Blanckenhagen discloses a method for producing a spectacle lens (para. 6 discloses spectacles) with a base material (para. 92 discloses that approximately 4-14 layers of the dielectric layer stack function to provide mechanical stability) and a metal atom-containing layer disposed on the base material (para. 60 discloses silver, gold, aluminum, chromium, titanium, or iron, and para. 61 discloses that the device is comprised of both dielectric layers and of a metal layer), the method comprising: forming the metal atom-containing layer on the base material (formation disclosed in para. 61), a vapor deposition source provided with a carrier that contains at least one granule selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide (SiO2), zirconium oxide (IV) (ZrO2), and titanium oxide (IV) (TiO2) (carrier comprising SiO2 and TiO2 disclosed in para. 207) and carries a metal particle containing at least one metal (paras. 60 & 61 disclosed at least one metal).
While Von Blankenhagen does not explicitly disclose that the metal atom-containing is applied specifically using electron beam vapor disposition, Von Blankenhagen does disclose the use of PVD to apply all of the layers (paras. 42-43). Official notice is taken that there are approximately five types of PVD processes; namely, thermal evaporation, electron-beam, sputter, pulsed laser, and arc, and that electron-beam PVD is frequently used in the coating of optical devices. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to use electron-beam PVD in particular because it permits the creation of highly precise layer thicknesses. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known device that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 2, Von Blankenhagen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Von Blankenhagen further discloses that the average particle diameter D50 of the granule is 0.1 to 5.0 mm (paras. 99-100 discloses 0.001 to 0.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Re: claim 4, Von Blankenhagen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Von Blankenhagen further discloses that in the metal particle includes silver (para. 60).
Re: claim 5, Von Blankenhagen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Von Blankenhagen further discloses that the metal particle contains at least one selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, palladium, mercury, cadmium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, titanium, molybdenum, and tungsten (para. 60 discloses gold and titanium).
Re: claim 7, Von Blankenhagen discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Von Blankenhagen further discloses that the spectacle lens further has an anti-reflection film disposed on the base material (paras. 81 and 91 disclose alternating refractive index layers TiO2 and SiO2 as antireflection layers, where para. 92 discloses that the first 4-14 layers of TiO2 and SiO2 function as the base material and the additional layers of alternative TiO2 and SiO2 function as the antireflection layer; and where the table in para. 158 discloses 20 total layers, the table in para. 160 discloses 22 total layers, the table in para. 162 discloses 24 total layers, etc.), and the metal atom-containing layer is disposed on the anti-reflection film (disposition disclosed in paras. 60-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 8, and 9 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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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 at 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights