DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (CN 106842612 A) in view of Nago et al. (JP 2009019157 A cited in IDS), Vetro (WO 2017/077359 A1 cited in IDS) and Matsuda et al. (4,973,640 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Peng et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action and the disclosures of Nago et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS) which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 10, Peng et al. disclose a bifocal resin lens (optical material) prepared from a polymerizable composition comprising diethylene glycol bis (allyl carbonate) compound (A), ultraviolet absorber (C) and isopropyl peroxydicarbonate, i.e. diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate (D1) (see paragraph 0009). Given that diethylene glycol bis(allyl carbonate) is the only compound present in the polymerizable composition, Peng et al. disclose a sole polymerizable monomer composition consisting of diethylene glycol bis (allyl carbonate) compound (A). The diethylene glycol bis(allyl carbonate) reads on an allyl carbonate represented by General Formula (1). Given that diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate (D1) is the only polymerization initiator, Peng et al. disclose polymerization initiator consisting of a radical polymerization initiator (D1). Further, there is no disclosure of a photochromic compound in the polymerizable composition.
Peng et al. do not disclose a (meth)acrylate compound (B). Peng et al. do not disclose an ultraviolet absorber (C) as presently claimed. Peng et al. do not disclose a radical polymerization (D2).
Nago et al. disclose a curable composition comprising a radical polymerizable monomer combined with a radical polymerization initiator (see Abstract, paragraph 0014). The radical polymerizable monomer comprises diethylene glycol bisallyl carbonate and/or its oligomer thereof (i.e. the compound A is allyl carbonate or a mixture of allylcarbonate A and an oligomer thereof) and other radically polymerizable monomer such as tripropylene glycol dimethacrylate (i.e. compound B) which is used to adjust the refractive index (see Abstract, paragraph 0016, last three lines, and paragraph 0018). As evidenced by the present specification, tripropylene glycol dimethacrylate is represented by General Formula (2-1), wherein p is 3 (see paragraph 0096 of published application). The amount of diethylene glycol bisallyl carbonate and/or its oligomer there of (compound A) can be 10 to 90 wt% and the amount of other radically polymerizable monomer such as tripropylene glycol dimethacrylate (compound B) can be 10 to 90 wt% (see paragraph 0019). This amount provides a cured product with refractive index of 1.48 to 1.525 (see paragraph 0019). Given that the radical polymerizable monomer of Nago et al. can comprise only diethylene glycol bisallyl carbonate and/or its oligomer thereof and tripropylene glycol dimethacrylate, Nago et al. discloses a sole polymerizable monomer consisting of an allyl carbonate compound A and a (meth)acrylate compound B as presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using a sole polymerizable monomer consisting of 10 to 90 wt% of an allyl carbonate compound and 10 to 90 wt% of a (meth)acrylate compound disclosed by Nago et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a sole polymerizable monomer consisting of 10 to 90 wt% of an diethylene glycol bis (allyl carbonate) compound and 10 to 90 wt% of a (meth)acrylate compound of Nago et al. instead of diethylene glycol bis (allyl carbonate) compound in Peng et al. in order to provide a cured product with refractive index of 1.48 to 1.525, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Peng et al. in view of Nago et al. do not disclose an ultraviolet absorber (C) as presently claimed. Peng et al. in view of Nago et al. do not disclose a radical polymerization (D2).
Vetro discloses UV absorber are incorporated in optical articles in order to reduce or prevent UV light from reaching the retina (in particular in ophthalmic lens materials), but also to protect the substrate material itself, thus preventing it from weathering and becoming brittle and/or yellow (see page 15, lines 33-36). The UV absorber can be a benzotriazole compound such as 2-(2-hydroxyphenyl)-benzotriazoles such as 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole (see page 16, lines 20-22). Given that 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole is identical to compound (C) represented by General Formula (3) utilized in the present invention, 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole is compound (C) represented by General Formula (3) (see paragraph 0106 of published application).
In light of motivation for using 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole disclosed by Vetro as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole as the ultraviolet absorber in Peng et al. in view of Nago et al. in order to reduce or prevent UV light from reaching the retina (in particular in ophthalmic lens materials), but also to protect the substrate material itself, thus preventing it from weathering and becoming brittle and/or yellow, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the ultraviolet absorber consists of 2-(2’-hydroxy-5’-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole (compound (C) represented by General Formula (3)).
Peng et al. in view of Nago et al. and Vetro do not disclose a radical polymerization (D2).
Matsuda et al. disclose an optical material composed of resin produced by radical polymerization of polyfunctional (meth)acrylates (see Abstract). Matsuda et al. disclose combination of radical polymerization initiator such as diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate (D1) and 1,1’-azobis(cyclohexane-1-carbonitrile) (D2) (see col. 5, lines 5-18). Further, the type of polymerization initiator is selected in order to obtain a resin having a high refractive index (see col. 5, lines 5-8).
In light of motivation for using combination of radical polymerization initiator such as diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate and 1,1’-azobis(cyclohexane-1-carbonitrile) disclosed by Matsuda et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use combination of radical polymerization initiator such as diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate and 1,1’-azobis(cyclohexane-1-carbonitrile) in the polymerizable composition of Peng et al. in view of Nago et al. and Vetro in order to provide resin having high refractive index, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6-8, Peng et al. disclose a molded article such as bifocal resin lens (optical material or plastic lens) obtained by curing the polymerizable composition (see paragraph 0010).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (CN 106842612 A) in view of Nago et al. (JP 2009019157 A cited in IDS), Vetro (WO 2017/077359 A1 cited in IDS) and Matsuda et al. (4,973,640 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (WO 2017/047742 A1). It is noted that when utilizing Kawaguchi et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2018/0341043 A1 (cited in IDS) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Kawaguchi et al. are found in US ‘043.
Regarding claim 9, Peng et al. in view of Nago et al., Vetro and Matsuda et al. disclose the a bifocal resin lens (plastic lens) as set forth above. Peng et al. in view of Nago et al., Vetro and Matsuda et al. do not disclose a plastic polarizing lens as presently claimed.
Kawaguchi et al. disclose a plastic polarized lens comprising a polarizing film and a substrate layer including a molded product obtained by curing a polymerizable composition for an optical material formed on at least one surface of the polarizing film (see paragraph 0208). The polymerizable composition comprises a polymerizable monomer having a (meth)acrylic group (compound B) and benzotriazole (compound C) (see paragraphs 0045, 0047, 0040).
Therefore, as taught by Kawaguchi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a plastic polarizing lens comprising a polarizing film and a base material layer formed over at least one surface of the polarizing film, wherein the base material layer comprises the molded product of Peng et al. in view of Nago et al., Vetro and Matsuda et al., and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khandel et al. (US 2008/0182916 A1) disclose a plastic lens made by polymerization of diethylene glycol bis allyl carbonate in presence of diisopropyl peroxydicarbonate as a catalyst (see Abstract). The plastic lens has low refractive index (see paragraph 0009).
Moriya et al. (4,607,087) disclose a plastic lens produced from polymerization of diethylene glycol bis(allyl carbonate) (a) with an organic peroxides (b) such as tert-butyl peroxyneodecanoate (D1) and organic peroxides (c) such as 1,1-bis(tert-butylperoxy)cyclohexane (D2) (see Abstract, col. 8, claim 3 and col. 9, claim 10).
King et al. (US 2007/0052922 A1) disclose a multifocal article comprising a rigid optical substrate and a polarizing layer on surface of the rigid optical substrate (see Abstract and paragraph 0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights