Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/021,507

OPHTHALMIC LENS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Examiner
BHUSHAN, KUMAR R
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Menicon Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
576 granted / 789 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2020/032014 08/25/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 05/04/23 and 08/09/24 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-11, 13, 16-17, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGee (US 5336797; IDS filed on 05/04/23). Regarding claims 1-3, 10-11, 22, McGee discloses an ocular lens such as contact lens (column 3, lines 15-24) comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing a polymerizable monomer such as siloxane monomer having a siloxane bond, wherein the siloxane monomer has single polymerizable group and 2-25 siloxane, and a siloxane-fee crosslinkable monomer free of any siloxane bond, wherein the siloxane-free crosslinkable monomer includes an alkylene glycol chain-containing crosslinkable monomer having: a chain moiety containing 6 or more alkylene glycol repeating units; and polymerizable groups arranged at both terminals of the chain moiety such as polyethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (average chain molecular weight of 1K; column 3, lines 25-43, column 5, lines 59-62, column 10, lines 22-25, claims 1, 5, 11-12), meeting the requirements of claims 1-3, 10-11, 22. Regarding claim 4, 16-17, 19, McGee discloses additional siloxane monomer (column 7, lines 13-40) and/or the hydrophilic polymeric monomers such as N-vinyl lactams (e.g. N-vinyl pyrrolidone (NVP)) (column 6, lines 6, 1-13). Regarding claims 5-7, McGee discloses 70.5 mol% siloxane monomer (Mn =2500 and polydispersity 2.3; example 2, table 1, column 9, lines 25-27), 15.1 mol% dimethylacrylamide, and 14.4 mol% PPGDMA (4K) (table 1, example 2), result in 6 wt% of PPGDMA (4K), fall into claim 5 range of 2 wt% or more or 0.9 wt% or more, claim 6 range of 2 wt% or more, or claim 7 range of from 3 to 25 wt%. Regarding claim 8, McGee discloses PEGDMA (1K) (column 10, lines 23-25, table 1, example 1). Formula used for HLB = 20 x Mh/M (Griffin’s equation used for the non-ionic surfactant). Mh = molecular weight of hydrophilic portion (PEG chain). M = total molecular weight. In PEGDMA (1K), MDMA =172 and Mh = 828. HLB = 20 x 828/1000 = 16.56, fall into claimed range of from 5 to 20. Regarding claim 9, McGee discloses the amount of siloxane monomer is from about 20 to 70 wt% (column 7, lines 54-55), fall into claimed range of from 10 to 70 wt%. Regarding claim 13, McGee discloses the siloxane monomer has Mw = 3,109 (column 9, lines 65-68), fall into claimed weight average molecular weight of 10,000 or less. 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. Claims 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGee as applied to claims 1, 16, above. MaGee includes the features of claims 1, 16, above. PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15, McGee discloses siloxane monomer represented by formula PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein m is integers from 2 to 25, chain transfer agent is thioglycolic acid, and B is polymerizable group such as glycidyl(meth)acrylate (column 2, lines 35-, column 5, lines -13), results in the molecular weight overlapping the claimed requirements of 1,000 or less, wherein the copolymerizable siloxane monomer PNG media_image3.png 174 392 media_image3.png Greyscale represented by formula (column 7, lines 30-38), read on claimed molecular weight of more than 1,000, wherein the siloxane monomer is present in an amount of about 1 to about 90 wt%, and copolymerizable siloxane monomer is present in an amount of up to 80 wt% (column 7, lines 51-58), overlapping range of claims ratio of siloxane monomer B to total of the siloxane monomers is 20 wt% or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the composition, wherein McGee discloses siloxane monomer represented by formula above, and siloxane monomer is present in an amount of about 1 to about 90 wt%, and copolymerizable siloxane monomer is present in an amount of up to 80 wt%, overlapping the requirement of claim 15. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding claim 18, McGee discloses the copolymerizable siloxane monomer in an amount of up to about 60 wt% (column 7, lines 13-58), overlapping claimed range of from 20 to 70 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the composition, wherein McGee discloses the copolymerizable siloxane monomer in an amount of up to about 60 wt%, overlapping the requirement of claim 18. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05). Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGee as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of Satake (US 2016/ 0289368). MaGee includes the features of claim 1, above. Regarding claims 20-21, MaGee does not disclose claimed stress relaxation rate and Young’s modulus. However, Satake discloses an ocular lens such as contact lens (column 3, lines 15-24) comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing a polymerizable monomer such as siloxane monomer having a siloxane bond, hydrophilic monomer, and crosslinking agent (para [0010], [0031], [0053],) wherein the composition has stress relaxation rate of from 10-20% (para [0025]) fall into claimed range of from 10 to 40 wt% and Young’s modulus of from 0.3 to 1 MPa (para [0025]), fall into claimed range of 0.3 to 2.3 MPa for providing excellent wearing comfort required for its use as the contact lens, and has sufficiently high flexibility and an adequate degree of deformation recovery property required for its use as the intraocular lens (para [0024]). MaGee and Sakate are pertinent to the ocular lens such as contact lens comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing a polymerizable monomer such as siloxane monomer having a siloxane bond, hydrophilic monomer, and crosslinking agent. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify MaGee composition to obtain stress relaxation rate of from 10-20% and Young’s modulus of from 0.3 to 1 MPa, as taught by Satake. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Satake that to do so would provide excellent wearing comfort required for its use as the contact lens, and has sufficiently high flexibility and an adequate degree of deformation recovery property required for its use as the intraocular lens. Conclusion References Robertson (US 5770669), Ueyama (US 2009/0234089), and Ford (US 2007/0138692) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST). 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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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. /KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600850
TRANSPARENT THERMOPLASTIC RESIN AND METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600803
SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR HEAT REMOVAL IN GAS PHASE POLYMERIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595361
TRANSFERABLE COMPOSITION AND METHODS FOR PREPARING AND USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595337
CROSS-LINKABLE COMPOSITIONS BASED ON ORGANYL OXYSILANE-TERMINATED POLYMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583962
WHITE LAMINATED POLYESTER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month