DETAILED ACTION The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group II, claims 22-32, in the reply filed on 12/15/2022 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of the species of a polypropylene modified graft copolymer, in the reply filed on 12/15/2022 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 and 24 a re withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (claims 1-21) or a nonelected species (claim 24 ), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025. Claim Interpretation Regarding claims 30-32: Claims 30 to 32 depend from claim 22 and recite limitations regarding a contact lens . Note, however, that the claimed invention is not a contact lens. Rather, the invention recited by the instant claims is a mold for a contact lens. Claims 30 to 32 have therefore been interpreted to require that the claimed mold is used for the production of a contact lens as described by the recited limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 22 , 23, 26 -28 , 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindt-Larsen et al, US5849209, in view of Zanini et al, EP1818692 . Kindt discloses a mold used for the production of contact lenses (for claim 22), wherein said mold is made from a composition comprising polypropylene, corresponding to the claimed polyolefin (for claim 22) which is a propylene homopolymer (for claim 23 ) , and at least 0.5 wt% of an additive (abstract). Note that Kindt specifically teaches that the additive is used as a mold release agent (Column 6, lines 54-55). Kindt is silent regarding the use of a polyether-modified polyolefin composition. Zanini discloses a method of making biomedical devices such as ophthalmic lenses/contact lenses (abstract, ¶0001), wherein a polyether such as polyethylene glycol, corresponding to the claimed polyether (for claim 22) , is used as an additive in the plastic material used to make the mold (¶0031). As taught by Zanini, it was known that the addition of said polyether to the mold facilitates the release of the lens from said mold (¶0009). Regarding claim 28: Zanini further teaches that polyethylene glycol methyl ether (i.e., methoxypolyethylene glycol) can be used as a mold release agent (¶0016). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art;” see In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to use a combination of polyethylene glycol and polyethylene glycol methyl ether, corresponding to the claimed hydrophilic additive, as a mold release agent. As discussed above, Kindt discloses a mold for use in the production of a contact lens, wherein said mold is made from a composition comprising a blend of polypropylene and an additive which is a mold release agent. As taught by Zanini, it was known in the art that polyethers such as polyethylene glycol could be added as a mold release agent to plastic compositions used for the production of contact lens(es). It has been held that t he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious ; see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) . The use of polyethers as a mold release agent was known in the art, as taught by Zanini. Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mold of Kindt by using a polyether as the additive, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining a final contact lens mold having improved release properties. Note that said modification would result in a composition in which a polyether is used as a modified for polypropylene-i.e., the composition rendered obvious by the prior art is a polyether-modified polyolefin (for claim 22). Regarding claims 26-27: Alternatively, note that Kindt discloses that the mold release additive may comprise a polypropylene wax (Column 9: lines 43-45). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art;” see In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As taught by Kindt and Zanini, both polypropylene wax and polyethers were known in the art to be suitable for use as mold release agents in contact lens molds. Barring a showing of evidence demonstrating unexpected results, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kindt by using a combination of a polypropylene wax and a polyether as the additive, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining a final mold having improved release properties. Note that said modification would result in a final mold made from a composition comprising polypropylene, corresponding to the claimed unmodified polyolefin (for claim 26), and at least 0.5 wt%, overlapping the claimed range (for claim 27), of an additive which is a blend of polyether and polypropylene wax, corresponding to the claimed polyether-modified polypropylene (for claim 26). Regarding claims 30-32: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the prior art renders obvious a mold comprising the same components (i.e., a polyether and a polyolefin) which is used for the same purpose of manufacturing a contact lens as the claimed invention. As the mold rendered obvious by the prior art appears to be identical to the claimed mold, it is reasonably expected that it could be used for the production of a contact lens having the recited properties. The burden is therefore shifted to applicant to provide evidence demonstrating that the mold rendered obvious by the prior art could not be used for the required use. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 25 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following references are relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention. Kindt-Larsen et al, US5849209: As discussed earlier in this Action, Kindt discloses the production of a mold for a contact lens, wherein said mold is made from a composition comprising polypropylene and at least 0.5 wt% of an additive which is a mold release agent. Zanini et al, EP1818692: As discussed earlier in this Action, Zanini teaches that it was known in the art to add a polyether such as polyethylene glycol as an additive to plastics used in the production of contact lens molds. Zanini further teaches that the addition of said polyether results in improved mold release properties. The prior art of record renders obvious a contact lens mold prepared from a composition made by mixing a polyether with polypropylene to obtain a composition having improved mold release properties. Note that this results in a composition which is a physical blend of the polypropylene and the polyether. Regarding claim 25: In contrast to the prior art , the claimed invention requires that the composition comprises a polyether reacted with a maleated graft polymer of a polyolefin. This limitation corresponds to the structure of a comb polymer having a polyolefin backbone to which polyether sidechains are attached through grafted maleic anhydride units. Neither Kindt nor Zanini teaches the use of a polymer having the structures recited in the instant claims in a mold for a contact lens, and no reference has been found that would motivate an ordinary artisan to modify the prior art teachings by using a polymer having the required structure. Regarding claim 29: The claimed invention requires the use of a polyolefin which is either a graft polymer or copolymer containing anhydride or carboxylic acid functionality, and further states that the amount of hydrophilic additive is 0.25 to 1.00 molar equivalents relative to the amount of said anhydride or carboxylic acid functionality. Neither Kindt nor Zanini teaches these limitations. Furthermore, no reference has been found that provides a motivation to modify the prior art composition by both using a polyolefin with anhydride or carboxylic acid groups in combination with one of the required hydrophilic additives, and adjusting the amount of said hydrophilic additive to be in the range of 0.25 to 1.00 molar equivalent relative to the anhydride/carboxylic acid content of the polyolefin. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riall et al, CA2845970, discloses a mold for the production of a contact lens, wherein said mold may comprise parts made from a modified polyolefin. Note that the modification disclosed by is the incorporation of an alicyclic moiety in the main chain (abstract; page 13: lines 1-6). Riall does not disclose the use of a polyether-modified polyolefin in the production of the prior art mold. Evans et al, US6031048, discloses a composition comprising a blend of polypropylene and a functionalized polypropylene, which may be obtained via the reaction of a maleated polypropylene with a polyetheramine. Note that Evans teaches that the composition of US6031048 is used for the production of molded automotive parts, films, and packaging materials (Column 2: lines 12-34). Evans does not disclose that its composition is suitable for use in the preparation of a mold for a contact lens. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. /JEFFREY S LENIHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765