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 .
Claims 1-10 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the term “polymerizable compound” lacks antecedent basis as the claim from which it depends on recites “polymerizable compounds”. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-107513 (translation provided in Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235)) in combination with JP 2007-213045.
Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches a method for manufacturing an eyeglass lens having a photochromic layer, the method comprising coating a plastic lens substrate with a polymerizable composition for an optical article including polymerizable compounds having molecular weight of 736 as component A, a polymerizable compound having a molecular weight of 300-400 as component B, a polymerizable compound having a molecular weight or 296 as component C and a polymerizable compound having a molecular weight of 400 or less as component D [0017]-[0029], a photochromic compound [0034], a photo initiator [0035]-[0037] and irradiating with ultraviolet rays at a wavelength of 405 nm to cure the composition and form a photochromic layer [0045],[0066].
Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) fails to teach using a UV blocking filter during light emission for curing.
JP 2007-213045 teaches discloses changing a double bond reaction rate distribution in a functional layer to cause the functional layer to have adequate adhesion between an upper layer and a transparent support body as a lower layer (claim 1-3 and paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). JP 2007-213045 discloses, as a specific means for changing the double bond reaction rate distribution, performing irradiation through a UV cut filter when performing light irradiation to cure the functional layer. The photochromic compound and the photo-radical polymerization initiator in the invention disclosed in Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) are identical to the photochromic compound and the photo-radical polymerization initiator used in the examples in the specification of the present international application (paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0070], and [0333]-[0339]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) curing process to include a UV blocking filter as evidenced by JP 2007-213045 with the expectation of improving adhesion between the coating and substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches a photochromic compound [0034] which would meet the claimed UV absorbing compound. Furthermore, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches UV absorbing agent [0037].
Regarding claim 3, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches the UV emission to be at 405 nm [0066].
Regarding claim 4, JP 2007-213045 teaches using a UV cut filter when performing light irradiation to cure the functional layer. The Examiner takes the position that during irradiation the UV cut filter can be utilized as well as curing without the filter as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches a method for coating a plastic lens substrate with a polymerizable composition for an optical article including polymerizable compounds having molecular weight of less than 500 as component B, component C or component D [0021]-[0025].
Regarding claim 6, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches a method for coating a plastic lens substrate with a polymerizable composition for an optical article including polymerizable compounds having molecular weight of 736 as component A which is more than 500 [0018].
Regarding claims 7-10, Shimada et al. (US 2022/0220235) teaches a optical article including a spectacle lens, a google lens, a sun visor and a shield for a helmet [0014],[0058].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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 CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights