DETAILED ACTION
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 May 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-22 as amended are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The monomer species “N-vinyl isopropamide” used in claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 is interpreted to mean a derivative of the drug Benzenepropanaminium, γ-(aminocarbonyl)-N-methyl-N,N-bis(1-methylethyl)-γ-phenyl- (9CI, ACI) having a vinyl substitution on the amide nitrogen. This is because the compound N-vinyl isopropamide is not known, and the aforementioned drug compound, colloquially known as “isopropamide”, is the only known compound having this root nomenclature, as “isopropamide” is not an analogous moiety to “formamide” or “acetamide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-22 are 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 (as well as claims 4 and 5) recite the species “trimethylammonium 2-hydroxy propyl methacrylate hydrochloride”. It is unclear what structure is referred to here, as no known structures have such a name, and applicant’s specification does not provide a structure nor any route to synthesizing the same if it is new. It is unclear by name, because the term “hydrochloride” is generally used in such compounds to indicate an ammonium chloride salt of secondary or tertiary amine; however, the species recited appears to have a quaternary ammonium group recited, and as such, it is unclear how a “hydrochloride” anion is part of a compound, especially a neutral compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0146823 (“Lee”) in view of US 2019/0009482 (“Lai”).
As to claims 1 and 16-18, Lee teaches a hydrogel contact lens having a wet modified surface. Lee teaches a general method of modifying the surface by immersing a hydrogel contact lens in a solution including hydrophilic monomer (para. 0056) and which may include an initiator (paras. 0068-0070). Lee teaches an interpenetrating network formed by this process and a physical intermixed layer formed with the lens substrate (para. 0042), thus a hydrophilic polymer layer entangled with the lens. While Lee does not state that the initiator is adsorbed on the lens, it is applied in the same way as described in applicant’s specification, and thus presumed to be adsorbed onto the lens. Lee teaches polymerization (para. 0072).
While Lee does not exemplify the recited monomers, Lee teaches N,N-dimethylacrylamide and glycerol monomethacrylate (same as 2,3-dihydroxpropyl methacrylate) and copolymers of these may be used (para. 0062). Lee does not discuss the recited ratio; however, Lai teaches hydrophilic polymers for use as a surface modification for contact lens (abstract). Lai teaches the hydrophilic polymer made from a hydrophilic monomer and bifunctional monomer (para. 0064) where the hydrophilic monomer may be N,N-cimethylacrylamide, and the bifunctional monomer may be glyceryl methacrylate (2,3-dihydroxpropyl methacrylate) as required by claims 1 and 17 (paras. 0067, 0070). Lai teaches a preferable ratio of these being 25:1 to 2:1, or 10:1 (para. 0064), which is within the ranges of claims 1, 16, and 18. Lai teaches such a ratio provides crosslinking with the lens surface body (para. 0064), and as such, the use of such monomers in combination is an obvious modification suggested for contact lens treatments by Lai.
As to claim 2, while not exemplified with the recited monomer, Lee teaches the initiator may include recited initiators including AIBN and 4,4-azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (para. 0068).
As to claim 4, Lee does not teach the recited monomers. However, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Lai teaches similar surface treatment polymers, and teaches the recited ratio of two monomers. Furthermore, Lai teaches a bifunctional monomer that may include 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (para. 0070), itself or in combination with other such monomers. Lai also teaches the polymer may be reacted with ethylene glycol diacrylate (para. 0072), and as such, the use of these monomers is an obvious modification suggested by Lai for providing crosslinking. Note that Lee also teaches the analogous compound ethylene glycol dimethacrylate for crosslinking (Lee, para. 0066), so the use of an analogous compound is an obvious modification of Lee.
As to claim 5, Lee does not teach the recited monomers. However, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Lai teaches similar surface treatment polymers. Furthermore, Lai teaches a bifunctional monomer that may include 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (para. 0070), itself or in combination with other such monomers, thus contemplating at least three different hydrophilic monomers. Lai also teaches the polymer may be reacted with ethylene glycol diacrylate (para. 0072), and as such, the use of these monomers is an obvious modification suggested by Lai for providing crosslinking. Note that Lee also teaches the analogous compound ethylene glycol dimethacrylate for crosslinking (Lee, para. 0066), so the use of an analogous compound is an obvious modification of Lee.
As to claim 6, Lee teaches forming on a silicone hydrogel lens (para. 0107).
As to claims 7, 8, and 21, Lee teaches a hydrogel contact lens having a wet modified surface. Lee teaches a general method of immersing a hydrogel contact lens in a solution including a hydrophilic monomer (para. 0056) and which may include an initiator (paras. 0068-0070). Lee teaches an interpenetrating network formed by this process and a physical intermixed layer formed with the lens substrate (para. 0042), thus a hydrophilic polymer layer entangled with the lens. While Lee does not state that the initiator is adsorbed thereon, the initiator is applied by immersing the lens in a solution of the initiator (paras. 0105-0106), and it is reasonable to presume that it is adsorbed thereon. Lee teaches polymerization (para. 0072). Lee teaches an interpenetrating network formed by this process and a physical intermixed layer formed with the lens substrate (para. 0042), thus a hydrophilic polymer layer entangled with the lens.
While Lee does not exemplify the recited monomers, Lee teaches N,N-dimethylacrylamide and glycerol monomethacrylate (same as 2,3-dihydroxpropyl methacrylate) and copolymers of these may be used (para. 0062). Lee does not discuss the recited ratio; however, Lai teaches hydrophilic polymers for use as a surface modification for contact lens (abstract). Lai teaches the hydrophilic polymer made from a hydrophilic monomer and bifunctional monomer (para. 0064) where the hydrophilic monomer may be N,N-cimethylacrylamide, and the bifunctional monomer may be glyceryl methacrylate (2,3-dihydroxpropyl methacrylate) as required by claims 7 and 21 (paras. 0067, 0070). Lai teaches a preferable ratio of these being 25:1 to 2:1, or 10:1 (para. 0064), which is within the ranges of claim 7. Lai teaches such a ratio provides crosslinking with the lens surface body (para. 0064), and as such, the use of such monomers in combination is an obvious modification suggested for contact lens treatments by Lai.
As to claim 9, Lee does not exemplify the recited amount of initiator; however, Lee teaches the solution may include 0.005 to 0.2 wt % (para. 0072), which overlaps the recited range. Further, Lee teaches alternate solutions including 0.05 to 5 wt % of initiator; as such, Lee contemplates forming hydrophilic coatings having the recited amounts of initiator.
As to claim 10, Lee teaches soaking the lens in a monomer solution and heating both (para. 0105).
As to claims 11-13, Lee teaches heating at a temperature of 80 degrees C as required by claim 11, for 1 hour as required by claims 12 and 13.
As to claim 14, while not exemplified with the recited monomer, Lee teaches the initiator may include recited initiators including AIBN and 4,4-azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (para. 0068).
As to claims 19 and 22, Lee does not discuss the recited additional monomer. However, Lai teaches the hydrophilic monomers can be combination, including N-vinylpyrrolidone, and as such, the use of such monomer is an obvious modification suggested by Lai.
As to claim 20, Lee does not discuss the contact angle. However, Lai teaches similar hydrophilic polymers for coating a contact lens using the recited monomers in a recited ratio. Lai teaches obtaining contact angle hysteresis of 15 degrees or less (para. 0096), which is substantially overlapping the recited range, and as such, obtaining a contact angle hysteresis in the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Lai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights