DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/10/2026.
3. Claims 1, 4-6, 25-37 are pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 25-37 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 25-37 are newly added. Claims 2-3, 7-24 are previously cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 25-37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7. Claims 25-31 are rejected under 35 USC 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim in independent form. Claims 25-31, as written, depends on claim 1, which recites “wherein the plurality of metal particles comprise cobalt or manganese or palladium or cadmium or indium or calcium or iron”. However, based on the content of the claim 1, the plurality of metal particles are selected from the group consisting of silver, gold, cobalt, manganese, nickel, copper, zinc, platinum, palladium, cadmium, indium, potassium, calcium, and iron. Thus claims 25-31 as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8 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.
9. Claim 37 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 37 recites “wherein the contact lens has a modulus of about 0.3 to about 0.4”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, the required unit of measurement for a contact lens elastic (Young's) modulus, thus claim 37 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1, 4-6, 32-36 are allowed.
11. Claims 25-31, 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The most pertinent prior art known by the Examiner includes Blair et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0138661 A1, hereinafter “’661”) or Judy C. Richter (US Pat. No. 4,669,834 A1; hereinafter “’834”).
‘661 teaches a contact lens comprising a contact lens body, and a blue blocking material covering the contact lens body, the blue light blocking material comprising a plurality of metal particles dispersed on the contact lens body, the plurality of metal particles consists of silver, gold, cobalt, manganese, nickel, copper, zinc, platinum, palladium, cadmium, indium, potassium, calcium, iron, or combinations there. Furthermore ‘661 teaches the blue light blocking material about 1 wt% to about 20 wt%. ‘661 does not expressly teach the contact lens body comprises a pyrrolidone group and a carboxyl group, and the content of the blue light blocking material is based on the total weight of the contact lens, and wherein the plurality of metal particles are formed by reacting a compound comprising a metal ion with at least a portion of the pyrrolidone group and the carboxyl group of the contact lens body. Therefore, the instant claims are distinguished over the prior art.
‘834 teaches a contact lens, comprising: a contact lens body including a hydrogel contact lens or a silicone hydrogel contact lens, and a blue light blocking material covering the contact lens body, wherein the blue light blocking material comprises a plurality of metal particles dispersed on the contact lens body and the plurality of metal particles consists of silver, gold, cobalt, manganese, nickel, copper, zinc, platinum, palladium, cadmium, indium, potassium, calcium, iron, or combinations thereof. ‘834 does not expressly teach the contact lens body comprises a pyrrolidone group and a carboxyl group, and the contact lens comprises about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% of blue light blocking material based on a total weight of the contact lens, and wherein the plurality of metal particles are formed by reacting a compound comprising a metal ion with at least a portion of the pyrrolidone group and the carboxyl group of the contact lens body. Therefore, the instant claims are distinguished over the prior art.
Prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest the claimed contact lens, comprising: a contact lens body, wherein the contact lens body comprises a pyrrolidone group and a carboxyl group; and a blue light blocking material covering the contact lens body, wherein a content of the blue light blocking material is about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total weight of the contact lens, the blue light blocking material comprises a plurality of metal particles dispersed on the contact lens body and in contact with the contact lens body, wherein the plurality of metal particles are formed by reacting a compound comprising a metal ion with at least a portion of the pyrrolidone group and the carboxyl group of the contact lens body, and the plurality of metal particles are selected from the group consisting of silver, gold, cobalt, manganese, nickel, copper, zinc, platinum, palladium, cadmium, indium, potassium, calcium, and iron.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 25-31,37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
08/26/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights