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 01/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 01/27/2025 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 appears to be missing a coma after the term “film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11" and "1" have both been used to designate “base body”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “base optical element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The structure to include a multilayered retardation layer 20 – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); a polarizing plate 24 to include a protection layer 36 or polarizing element layer 38 – (construed as at least one second element selected from a protection liner or a base optical element or a second functional film); a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22 – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer placed in contact with at least one surface of the multilayered retardation layer/first element and at least one surface of the polarizing plate/second element), wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality and comprises coloring agent, see at least figure 3 and [0014].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Coue discloses a functionalized laminated optical element. The element to include a functional film structure of a single layer or a multilayer structure, see abstract – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); an optical base element, see abstract – (construed as at least one second element); a layer of a pressure-sensitive adhesive of optical quality, see abstract – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer placed in contact with at least one surface of the first element and at least one surface of the second element, wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality).
Coue does not explicitly disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises coloring agents.
Sato discloses multilayered eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The eyeglasses to include the use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains coloring material, see at least figure 3 and [0014]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate Sato for its inventive pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising coloring material as doing so allows for compensation of color changes due to other layers, see at least [0028].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coue’s pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to include a coloring agent as taught by Sato to provide the functionalized laminated optical element with a means for correcting the color of the optical element as suggested by Sato.
Regarding claims 3-4, as previously discussed, modified Coue discloses the second element is a base optical element and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer disposed between the first and second elements, see Coue discussion in claim 1 rejection. And the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer defines a peel force when dry and a peel force when wet, each above 20 N/25 mm. And a decrease between the peel force of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer when dry and the peel force when wet is not higher than 10%, see Coue [0012], [0054], [0111] – (corresponds to and overlaps a peel force when dry and a peel force when wet, each above 13N/25 mm to separate the first element from the base optical element; and a decrease between the peel force of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer when dry and the peel force when wet is not higher than 35%). Concerning the claimed range: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer peel force that corresponds to the claimed ranges, as the prior art further suggests this improves edging performance. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Coue discloses the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus G' below 1.6 x 105 Pa at 85°C, and demonstrates a dry peel strength and a wet peel force strength both above 20 N/25 mm, see Coue [0077]. Concerning the claimed range: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer storage modulus that corresponds to the claimed ranges, as the prior art further suggests this exhibits a very strong adhesion between the lens and the functional film structure. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 6, Coue discloses a functionalized laminated optical element. The element to include a functional film structure of a single layer or a multilayer structure, see abstract – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); an optical base element, see abstract – (construed as at least one second element selected from the group consisting of a protection liner, a base optical element and a second functional film); a layer of a pressure-sensitive adhesive of optical quality disposed between the functional film and base optical element, see abstract – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer placed in contact with at least one surface of the first element and at least one surface of the second element, wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality).
Coue does not explicitly disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises coloring agents.
Sato discloses multilayered eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The eyeglasses to include the use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains coloring material, see at least figure 3 and [0014]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate Sato for its inventive pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising coloring material as doing so allows for compensation of color changes due to other layers, see at least [0028].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coue’s pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to include a coloring agent as taught by Sato to provide the functionalized laminated optical element with a means for correcting the color of the optical element as suggested by Sato.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 7, Coue discloses a functionalized laminated optical element as an ophthalmic lens, see [0001] – (construed as an eyewear device). The lens is configured to be trimmed so that its outline fits the shape of a frame that receives it, see [0004] – (construed as a supporting structure such as a frame and at least one functionalized optical article enclosed within the supporting structure, and edged according to the dimensions of the supporting structure). The functionalized laminated optical element/lens includes an optical base element and a layered structure, see abstract – (construed as the functionalized optical article comprising a base element and applied thereon, a functionalized optical layered structure).
The functionalized laminated optical element laminate includes a functional film structure of a single layer or a multilayer structure, see abstract – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); an optical base element, see abstract – (construed as at least one second element selected from the group consisting of a protection liner, a base optical element and a second functional film); a layer of a pressure-sensitive adhesive of optical quality disposed between the functional film and base optical element, see abstract – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer placed in contact with at least one surface of the first element and at least one surface of the second element, wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality).
Coue does not explicitly disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises coloring agents.
Sato discloses multilayered eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The eyeglasses to include the use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains coloring material, see at least figure 3 and [0014]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate Sato for its inventive pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising coloring material as doing so allows for compensation of color changes due to other layers, see at least [0028].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coue’s pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to include a coloring agent as taught by Sato to provide the functionalized laminated optical element with a means for correcting the color of the optical element as suggested by Sato.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baillet (US 2016/0320636 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sato does not explicitly disclose an application technique of the coloring agent. However, such techniques are well-known and conventional in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would chose any number of common techniques to apply the coloring agent. In any event, Baillet discloses a color balancing means for an optical article. This includes a technique of using a dye – (construed as a coloring agent) which is applied in a separate process such as a printing primer or inkjet, sublimation or spraying, see [0035], [0042].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato’s coloring agent to include a coloring agent application technique of sublimable, printable, sprayable and inkjetable as taught by Baillet to provide a well-known and conventional means for incorporating the coloring agent into a layer of an optical article, see Baillet [0041].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baillet (US 2016/0320636 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Coue does not explicitly disclose an application technique of the coloring agent. However, such techniques are well-known and conventional in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would chose any number of common techniques to apply the coloring agent. In any event, Baillet discloses a color balancing means for an optical article. This includes a technique of using a dye – (construed as a coloring agent) which is applied in a separate process such as a printing primer or inkjet, sublimation or spraying, see [0035], [0042].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Coue’s coloring material to include a coloring material application technique of sublimable, printable, sprayable and inkjetable as taught by Baillet to provide a well-known and conventional means for incorporating the coloring agent into a layer of an optical article, see Baillet [0041].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 8, Coue discloses a method for manufacturing a functionalized laminated optical element, see [0080]. The method to include a functional film structure of a single layer or a multilayer structure, see abstract – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); a layer of a pressure-sensitive adhesive of optical quality, see abstract – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality).
Coue does not explicitly disclose a step of coloring at least one surface of the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with coloring agents.
Sato discloses multilayered eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The eyeglasses to include the use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains coloring material, see at least figure 3 and [0014]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate Sato for its inventive pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising coloring material as doing so allows for compensation of color changes due to other layers, see at least [0028]. That is, one would use a step of coloring at least one surface of the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer with coloring agent to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coue’s method including a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to further include a coloring agent as taught by Sato to provide the functionalized laminated optical element with a means for correcting the color of the optical element as suggested by Sato.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Baillet (US 2016/0320636 A1), in view of Momma (US 2009/0047424 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 10, modified Coue does not explicitly disclose an application technique of the coloring agent. However, such techniques are well-known and conventional in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would chose any number of common techniques to apply the coloring agent. In any event, Baillet discloses a color balancing means for an optical article. This includes a technique of using a dye – (construed as a coloring agent) which is applied in a separate sublimation process, see [0035], [0042]. Baillet further discloses the dye/coloring can be incorporated into various components of the optical article having a flat shape, see [0033] – (construed as coloring the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is a step of performed through sublimation, wherein the coloring agents are sublimable, and wherein during the sublimation, the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is in a flat form). Momma discloses a method of tinting an optical lens by sublimation. This includes applying the tinting material – (construed as a coloring agent) with an inkjet nozzle – (construed as a coloring agent transfer support) disposed over a substrate surface – (construed as a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer); and where a distance between the inkjet nozzle and the substrate is 0.5 mm to 5.0 mm, see [0033] – [0035] – (construed as and overlaps the distance between the coloring agent transfer support and the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is below 15 mm). Momma discloses such a technique allows for sublimation to occur at a lower temperature than when normal pressure is used as at high temperatures deformation and yellowing of the substrate may occur.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Coue’s method to include coloring material to further comprise coloring the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is a step of performed through sublimation, wherein the coloring agents are sublimable, and wherein during the sublimation, the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is in a flat form as taught by Baillet to provide a well-known and conventional means for incorporating the coloring agent into a layer of an optical article, see Baillet [0041]; and having a coloring agent transfer support facing the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is in a flat form, wherein the distance between the coloring agent transfer support and the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is below 15 mm, as taught by Momma to provide Coue’s method with the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Baillet (US 2016/0320636 A1), in view of Barrau et al. (US 2022/0113559 A1).
Regarding claims 11-14, modified Coue does not explicitly disclose fixing the coloring agents through imbibition.
Baillet discloses a color balancing means for an optical article. This includes a technique of using a dye – (construed as a coloring agent) which is applied in a sublimation process, see [0035], [0042]. Baillet further discloses the dye may be included in a coating after its deposition at the surface of the substrate – (construed as a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer), see [0042] – (construed as a step of coloring a surface of the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer using a sublimation method).
Barrau discloses a method for obtaining an ophthalmic lens. The method to include a step of tinting the lens, by applying a sublimation process, and an imbibition process. The imbibition process being suitable for tinting the lens body, in addition to tinting by a sublimation process, see [0082] – [0085]. That is, one of ordinary skill would as a matter of routine experimentation use an imbibition technique on the body of the lens opposite of the previously coated/sublimation colored surface – (construed as fixing the coloring agents through imbibition to the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer after the coloring the at least one surface of the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer; and wherein during the imbibition, the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is disposed such that its surface on which the coloring agents are deposited, constitutes the upper surface of the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer). Moreover, the imbibition step includes immersion in a hot liquid bath comprising dyes; then left in the bath for a determined time so that dyes can diffuse in the substrate, see [0085] – (construed as heating the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer at a temperature and during a time allowing to soften without melting the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer such as the coloring agents to be fixed on the surface and/or penetrate the thickness of said at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer). And further where an oven – (construed as air convection heating) is used as a heating means, see Barrau [0157] – (construed as heating the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer by air convection or by surface irradiation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Coue’s method to include the claimed imbibition process steps as reasonably suggested by Baillet and Barrau to provide the process with a means for tinting/coloring the surface and the body of the lens as suggested by the prior art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coue et al. (US 2019/0111641 A1), in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015021995 A – of record).
Regarding claim 15, Coue discloses a method for manufacturing a functionalized laminated optical element including thermoforming thereof, see [0080], [0100] – (construed as thermoforming, according to a base element curvature of a base element functionalized optical layered structure). The method to further include a functional film structure of a single layer or a multilayer structure, see abstract – (construed as a first element representing a first single-layer or multi-layer functional film); an optical base element, see abstract – (construed as at least one second element selected from the group consisting of a protection liner and a second functional film); a layer of a pressure-sensitive adhesive of optical quality disposed between the first and second elements, see abstract – (construed as at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer placed in contact with at least one surface of the first element and at least one surface of the second element, wherein the at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is of optical quality). And pressing the functional film structure against the convex or concave face of the base optical element so as to obtain a final assembly, see [0098] – (construed as fixing the thermoformed functionalized optical layered structure on said base element).
Coue does not explicitly disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises coloring agents.
Sato discloses multilayered eyeglasses – (construed as a functionalized optical layered structure). The eyeglasses to include the use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 22, wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer contains coloring material, see at least figure 3 and [0014]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate Sato for its inventive pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising coloring material as doing so allows for compensation of color changes due to other layers, see at least [0028].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coue’s pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to include a coloring agent as taught by Sato to provide the functionalized laminated optical element with a means for correcting the color of the optical element as suggested by Sato.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights