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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (2018/0239171) in view of Neavin et al. (6,783,349, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Wold discloses a protective assembly (at least Figure 1, 100, eyewear lens) comprising: a singly-curved optically clear substrate (114, second substrate; [0039]) comprising a front side (left hand side of 114, second substrate) and surface (left hand side surface of 114, second substrate); and, a laser-protective stack (110, polymeric multilayer optical film; [0035]) adhesively laminated to a front side of the substrate ([0038]), the laser-protective stack comprising: a multilayer optical film (110, polymeric multilayer optical film) configured to exhibit a light-transmission of 10% or less in a preselected wavelength range of the visible spectrum (at least Figure 3; [0028]); an optically clear physical-protection layer (112, first substrate) that is in front of the multilayer optical film (Figure 1) and a first optically clear adhesive ([0038, 0084]) that adhesively bonds a rear side of the optically clear physical protection layer to a front side of the multilayer optical film ([0038, 0084], Figure 1); and, a second optically clear adhesive ([0038, 0084]) that adhesively bonds a rear side of the multilayer optical film to a front side of the substrate ([0038, 0084], Figure 1); wherein the laser-protective stack exhibits an overall light-transmission of at least 60% over the visible spectrum (at least Figure 3; [0028]).
Wold fails to teach wherein the first and second optically clear adhesives are pressure-sensitive adhesives. Wold and Neavin are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Neavin teaches a protective assembly wherein first and second optically clear adhesives are pressure sensitive adhesives (col 39 lines 38-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Neavin and provide the first optically clear adhesive and the second optically clear adhesive to be pressure-sensitive adhesives. Doing so would allow for easy lamination and secure bonding of the layers.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 wherein the preselected wavelength range of the visible spectrum is within 510-550 nm (at least Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 wherein the second optically clear adhesive comprises a thickness of from 10 microns to 100 microns ([0084]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 wherein the substrate is polycarbonate ([0039]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 wherein the protective assembly is an impact-resistant pane of a protective visor or is an impact-resistant pane of protective goggles ([0022]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Wold discloses a method of making the protective assembly of claim 1, the method comprising adhesively laminating the laser-protective stack to the front side of the substrate by way of the second optically clear pressure-sensitive adhesive ([0038, 0084], Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Wold discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the method is performed by passing the laser-protective stack and the substrate through a lamination nip comprising first and second rollers that are pressed toward each other (Neavin: at least col 24 lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Wold discloses the method of claim 17 wherein the substrate exhibits a local thickness that varies along an arcuate direction of the substrate, wherein the substrate is fed into the lamination nip in a direction that is aligned with the arcuate direction of the substrate, and wherein at least one of the first and second rollers comprises a resiliently deformable surface so that the roller is configured to compensate for the variable thickness of the substrate (Neavin: col 24 lines 57-59 teach deliberate profiling of the web thickness using die lip controls).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Wold discloses a method of protecting an eye of a user using the protective assembly of claim 1, the method comprising: donning a headgear comprising the protective assembly of claim 1 so that the protective assembly lies in an optical path along which electromagnetic radiation travels to the eye of the user (at least Figure 1).
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (2018/0239171) in view of Neavin et al. (6,783,349, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perricone et al. (2017/0219849).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 2 wherein the preselected wavelength range that is within 510-550 nm is a first preselected wavelength range (at least Figure 3).
The modified Wold fails to teach wherein the multilayer optical film is configured to also exhibit a light-transmission of 10% or less in a second preselected range of the visible spectrum, that is within 610-680 nm. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly wherein the multilayer optical film is configured to also exhibit a light-transmission of 10% or less in a second preselected range of the visible spectrum, that is within 610-680 nm (Figure 5D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide wherein the multilayer optical film is configured to also exhibit a light-transmission of 10% or less in a second preselected range of the visible spectrum, that is within 610-680 nm. Doing so would allow for modifying visual color characteristics as well as reducing back reflections into the eye from the inside surface of the lens.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 2 wherein the multilayer optical film that is configured to exhibit a light-transmission of less than 10% in the preselected wavelength range that is within 510-550 nm, is a first multilayer optical film (at least Figure 3).
The modified Wold fails to teach where the laser-protective stack comprises a second multilayer optical film that is configured to exhibit a light-transmission of less than 10% in a preselected range that is within 610-680 nm. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly where the laser-protective stack comprises a second multilayer optical film that is configured to exhibit a light-transmission of less than 10% in a preselected range that is within 610-680 nm (Figure 5D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide where the laser-protective stack comprises a second multilayer optical film that is configured to exhibit a light-transmission of less than 10% in a preselected range that is within 610-680 nm. Doing so would allow for modifying visual color characteristics by allowing steeper stop bands, as well as reducing back reflections into the eye from the inside surface of the lens.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 2 but fails to teach wherein the preselected wavelength range of the visible spectrum is within 610-680 nm. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly wherein the preselected wavelength range of the visible spectrum is within 610-680 nm (Figure 5D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide wherein the preselected wavelength range of the visible spectrum is within 610-680 nm. Doing so would allow for modifying visual color characteristics as well as reducing back reflections into the eye from the inside surface of the lens.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises a scratch-resistant layer. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises a scratch-resistant layer ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises a scratch-resistant layer. Doing so would allow for improved durability for the assembly.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises an anti-reflection layer. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises an anti-reflection layer ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide wherein a front surface of the optically clear physical-protection layer comprises an anti-reflection layer. Doing so would allow for improved visibility by the user.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wold discloses the method of claim 19 but fails to teach wherein the headgear comprises an impact-resistant visor or impact-resistant goggles. The modified Wold and Perricone are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Perricone teaches a protective assembly wherein the headgear comprises an impact-resistant visor or impact-resistant goggles ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Perricone and provide wherein the headgear comprises an impact-resistant visor or impact-resistant goggles. Doing so would allow for improved durability for the assembly.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (2018/0239171) in view of Neavin et al. (6,783,349, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hallock et al. (2017/0363884).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the laser-protective stack is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of infrared radiation having a wavelength of over 680 nm and is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of under 380 nm. The modified Wold and Hallock are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Hallock teaches a protective assembly wherein the laser-protective stack is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of infrared radiation having a wavelength of over 680 nm (Figure 7 depicts certain wavelengths over 680 nm hav a transmission of less than 2%) and is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of under 380 nm (Figure 7 depicts certain wavelengths below 380 nm have a transmission of less than 2%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Hallock and provide wherein the laser-protective stack is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of infrared radiation having a wavelength of over 680 nm and is configured to exhibit less than 2% transmission of ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of under 380 nm. Doing so would allow for improved protection from UV and infrared wavelengths, thereby improving protection for the user.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Wold teaches the protective assembly of claim 6 wherein the multilayer optical film is configured to reflectively block infrared radiation having a wavelength of over 680 nm (Hallock: Figure 6) and is configured to reflectively block ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of under 380 nm (Hallock: Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wold teaches the protective assembly of claim 6 wherein the laser-protective stack further comprises at least one additional film in addition to the multilayer optical film (Hallock: [0042-0043]), the at least one additional film being configured to absorptively block the infrared radiation having a wavelength over 680 nm and/or to absorptively block the ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of under 250 nm (Hallock: [0042-0043]; Figures 6 and 7).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wold et al. (2018/0239171) in view of Neavin et al. (6,783,349, of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jannard (4,859,048, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the substrate exhibits an at least substantially constant radius of curvature at all locations of the substrate that lie on an arc that is centered on a midline of the substrate and that extends 45 degrees to each side of the midline along an arcuate direction of the substrate. The modified Wold and Jannard are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Jannard teaches a protective assembly wherein the substrate exhibits an at least substantially constant radius of curvature at all locations of the substrate that lie on an arc that is centered on a midline of the substrate and that extends 45 degrees to each side of the midline along an arcuate direction of the substrate (at least Abstract; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Jannard and provide wherein the substrate exhibits an at least substantially constant radius of curvature at all locations of the substrate that lie on an arc that is centered on a midline of the substrate and that extends 45 degrees to each side of the midline along an arcuate direction of the substrate. Doing so would allow for improved visual comfort to the user.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wold discloses the protective assembly of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the substrate is a variable thickness substrate that exhibits a maximum local thickness at a midline of the substrate and wherein the local thickness of the substrate decreases as a path is followed along an arcuate direction of the substrate away from the midline of the substrate, so that a local thickness of the substrate at a location that is 45 degrees away from the midline of the substrate along the arcuate direction of the substrate is from 60 to 80% of the local thickness of the substrate at the midline. The modified Wold and Jannard are related because both teach a protective assembly.
Jannard teaches a protective assembly wherein the substrate is a variable thickness substrate that exhibits a maximum local thickness at a midline of the substrate and wherein the local thickness of the substrate decreases as a path is followed along an arcuate direction of the substrate away from the midline of the substrate, so that a local thickness of the substrate at a location that is 45 degrees away from the midline of the substrate along the arcuate direction of the substrate is from 60 to 80% of the local thickness of the substrate at the midline (at least Abstract; Figure 6; col 3 lines 1-5, col 6 lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Wold to incorporate the teachings of Jannard and provide wherein the substrate is a variable thickness substrate that exhibits a maximum local thickness at a midline of the substrate and wherein the local thickness of the substrate decreases as a path is followed along an arcuate direction of the substrate away from the midline of the substrate, so that a local thickness of the substrate at a location that is 45 degrees away from the midline of the substrate along the arcuate direction of the substrate is from 60 to 80% of the local thickness of the substrate at the midline. Doing so would allow for improved visual comfort to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mason (2024/0345422), Perricone (2015/0338683), Akozbek (2012/0099188), and Seeto (7,967,435) disclose relevant protective assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights