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 .
1.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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al 2003/0075814 essentially for reasons of record as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the last office action with these additional comments.
Applicant has now set forth in the independent claims that the back surface mold is made of metal. As already noted, Keller et al (see paragraph 0015) teaches that suitable mold materials would include plastics, mineral glass and metal. Figure 3 of Keller et al clearly shows a mold element (2’ in Fig. 3) that would be made of a plastic material secured to a mold support element—see paragraph 0016. Also, Example 9 teaches a plastic mold element attached to a face of a mold support made of mineral glass. The only aspect missing would be that a metal mold is used to form the back of the lens. Note that in Example 9, both molds are formed from glass with plastic inserts thereon. However, it is rather obvious that if one desired to make a lens with only a front microstructure, then the mold forming the rear face of the lens would not require a microstructure. Ie, the rear face of the lens would be formed by a simple mold made of one of the mold materials noted at paragraph 0015. Ie, the other mold would be made of plastic, glass or metal. It would not constitute an inventive effort to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Example 9 of Keller et al with a metal mold to make the rear surface of the lens given that only the front surface would require the microstructure. Clearly, metal is a conventional lens mold material—as indeed taught by Keller et al at paragraph 0015—and one of ordinary skill in this art would have obviously been aware of this and used whatever rear surface mold material deemed most desirable. See also paragraph 0088 in Keller et al, which discloses that the selection of the materials used for the mold parts would have depended on polymerization or hardening processes for the lens material and as such would have been within the skill level of the art.
2.Claim(s) 3-9 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al 2003/0075814 in view of Barrows et al 2009/0121370 essentially for reasons of record as set forth in paragraph 1, supra and paragraph 4 of the last office action.
3.Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that Keller et al cannot reasonably be considered to suggest that a metal mold element would form the back surface of the lens. Such cannot be agreed with. Figure 3 of Keller et al, in combination with Example 9 therein, would obviously suggest a plastic insert on a glass support to make the front surface of a lens and a single material mold to make the rear surface. Since Keller et al discloses metal as being a suitable mold material for lens molds, it would not take an inventive effort to form a rear surface mold made of metal in the applied reference. Applicant submits that the disclosure at paragraph 0015 of Keller et al concerning mold materials is directed to the first embodiment which teaches a mold made from only one material. However, it is also quite clear that the molds in Keller et al that contain a plastic insert with the microstructure thereon would also have to have a supporting mold material. Again, Example 9 teaches that such a supporting mold material would be glass. There simply is no reason why the choice of a metal mold to form the rear surface of the lens in a modified Example 9 would not have been obvious. Arguments directed to French et al are moot at this point since the reference has been dropped from the rejection. The instant specification at paragraph 0016 cannot be used to support evidence of unobviousness in this case, since the prior art being applied does not disclose using only thermoplastic mold elements. In fact, thermoplastic inserts are used on a mold support that is taught as being glass (Example 9) while the other mold would suitably be plastic, glass or metal (Figure 3). It is submitted that a probative showing of unobviousness would require that the instant mold arrangement provide an unexpected benefit over the arrangement shown in Keller et al, and such has not been shown at this point in the prosecution.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights