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 .
Receipt is acknowledged for response to restriction requirement filed 12/22/2025 and IDS filed 12/13/2023 and 11/06/2024.
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected the cage-photo initiator claim 22, Norrish type I initiator of claim 15. Based on this election, applicant withdraws claims 16-17 and 23-26. The examiner agrees that claims 16 and 17 reciting contributory initiator having been withdrawn indicates that further election of a contributory initiator is not required.
Claims 16-17 and 23-26 stand withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are under examination.
Priority
This application claims benefit of 63/505,840 filed 06/02/2023.
Other Matters
For Claim 22: It is suggested that the “a.k.a” be deleted leaving the “caged benzophenone (BP) in parenthesis. The removal may avoid the a.k.a use as informal term that may be an unsuitable language in patent claims which require clear and unambiguous definitions.
Correction is respectfully requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandstedt et al. (20020016629 A1) in view of Tasdelen et al., “Benzodioxinone Photochemistry in Macromolecular Science: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities” in ACS MACRO LETTERS 2017, 6, pp 1392-1397 which was submitted by applicant in form 1449.
For claims 1 and 4, Sandstedt discloses refraction modulating composition (RMC) dispersed in a first polymer matrix composition (FPMC) (paragraph [0006], [0008]). For an intraocular lens (IOL) the polymer is polysiloxane (paragraphs [0009], [0044], [0050], [0053], claim 5) with polysiloxane meeting the limitation of silicone polymer network of the claims. Sandstedt teaches that the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens is changed by light induced polymerization that changes the lens power (paragraph [0037]) making the lens light adjustable and thus meeting the limitation of light adjustable lens. The RMC includes at least one group that is capable of photopolymerization and acrylate is named polymerizable group (paragraphs [0049], [0056]) and the acrylate meets the limitation of mobile macromer. RMC monomers are poly-siloxanes, where the arrangement of the polymer matrix and oligomers or macromers shown in Figure 1, is similar to arrangement of mobile macromers shown in Figure 1 of the instant application (figure 1; paragraphs [0037], [0046], [0050], [0103]) and the RMC monomers include dimethylsiloxane-diphenylsiloxane copolymer, where the phenyl ring of the copolymer is expected to absorb UV light at about 220 nm; UV-photoinitiator, 2,2-dimethoxy-2 phenylacetophenone (DMPA) (paragraphs [0010], [0049], [0081]) meet the limitation of ultraviolet absorber; RMC comprises diffused or mobile monomers having MW 1000 g/mole, which is the molecular weight of oligomers or macromers, and further, upon exposure to an energy, the RMC forms a second polymer matrix (paragraphs [0037]-[0038], [0046], [0103]) leading to a changing of an optical power of the light adjustable lens (LAL) since the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens is changed by light induced polymerization thus a change in lens power (paragraph [0037]).
Sandstedt does not disclose a cage-photoinitiator complex, wherein a caged photoinitiator can be freed from a cage by a first photon of a first illumination, the free photoinitiator can be activated by a second photon of a second illumination. However, Tasdelen discloses a cage-photoinitiator complex, wherein a caged photoinitiator can be freed from a cage by a first photon of a first
illumination, the free photoinitiator can be activated by a second photon of a second illumination (as shown in scheme 1) the exposure to light of Benzodioxinone results in formation of the Benzophenone, which in turn, initiates free radical polymerization upon irradiation with the second photon of a second illumination, and where Benzodioxinone and Benzophenone are identical to 5-hydroxy-2,2-diphenyl-4H-benzo-[1,3]dioxinone acting as a cage and benzophenone acting as the photoinitiator of the cage-photoinitiator complex disclosed in claim 22 of the instant application (abstract; page 1393, scheme 1; page 1394, scheme 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the relevant date, to have modified the Lens, as previously disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to have provided for a cage-photoinitiator complex, wherein a caged photoinitiator can be freed from a cage by a first photon of a first illumination, the free photoinitiator can be activated by, a second photon of a second illumination, as previously disclosed by Tasdelen (see the abstract; page 1393, scheme 1; page 1394, scheme 3), to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light Induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt). Further, Sandstedt and Tasdelen both disclose the use of phenylketones as initiators for photopolymerization (paragraphs [0010], [0049], [0081] of Sandstedt; abstract; page 1393, scheme 1; page 1394, scheme 3 of Tasdelen). The modification to Sandstedt's Lens, of providing for a cage-photoinitiator complex, wherein a caged photoinitiator can be freed from a cage by a first photon of a first illumination, the free photoinitiator can be activated by a second photon of a second illumination, would provide the benefit of improving the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 2, Sandstedt teaches ultraviolet absorber dimethylsiloxane-diphenylsiloxane copolymer, where the phenyl ring of the copolymer is expected to absorb UV light at about 220 nm; UV-photoinitiator, 2,2-dimethoxy-2 phenylacetophenone (DMPA) (paragraphs [0010], [0049], [0081]). Sandstedt does not identify the UV absorbers as switchable or not switchable. Absorbers are this switchable or not switchable. Therefore, before the effective date of the invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably expect the UV absorber to be switchable or mot switchable meeting the requirement of the claim.
For claim 3, the combination of Sandstedt and Tasdelen, the LAL of claim 1. Sandstedt further discloses the polymerization reaction includes grafting a mobile macromer onto the polymer silicone network, or bonding to another mobile macromer, wherein the bonded macromers eventually entangle with the polymer silicone network FPMC 12 are poly-siloxanes end capped with a terminal cross-linkable group, RMC 14 monomers are poly-siloxanes end capped with a terminal photopolymerizable Siloxane moiety, upon exposure to an energy, the RMC forms a second polymer matrix, i.e., where the cross-linkable groups of the polysiloxane network are expected to react with photopolymerizable Siloxanes of the mobile RMC oligomers, therefore, grafting the RMC oligomers 14 into the FPMC 12 network; figure 1; paragraphs [0038], [0046], [0050]).
For claims 5 and 6, the wavelength for the cage photoinitiator and the free photoinitiator and the first and second peak wavelengths of LAL of Sandstedt and Tasdelen would inherently have the recited wavelengths. However, for claim 5, Sandstedt teaches that refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens is changed/adjusted by light induced polymerization leading to a changing in lens power (paragraph [0037]). Sandstedt does not disclose the wavelength for the cage photoinitiator and the free photoinitiator. But Tasdelen teaches that upon UV irradiation at 350 nm, the absorption bands for benzodioxinone at 325 nm rapidly diminished, i.e., the first peak of the cage-photoinitiator benzodioxinone, whereas the absorption bands at approximately 360 nm, corresponding to benzophenone, gradually increased, that is, the second peak of the photoinitiator benzophenone (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to provide a cage-photoinitiator complex having a wavelength-dependent first absorptivity with a first maximum at a first peak wavelength in a range of 250 nm-450 nm; and the free photoinitiator has a wavelength-dependent second absorptivity with a second maximum at a second peak wavelength in a range of 250 nm-450 nm, as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph) to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power of Sandstedt (paragraph [0037]). For claim 6, Sandstedt does not disclose the first and second peak wavelengths of LAL. However, Tasdelen discloses that upon UV irradiation at 350 nm, the absorption bands for benzodioxinone at 325 nm rapidly diminished, whereas the absorption bands at approximately 360 nm gradually increased, as shown in figure 1a, the 325 nm band has actual maximum diffused range of 320-330 nm (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL of Sandstedt in order to provide first peak wavelength and a second peak wavelength at a range of 330 nm-380 nm, as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph), to improve adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 9, Sandstedt does not disclose a first illumination and the second illumination are generated by the same illumination source with a common center wavelength. However, Tasdelen discloses that during UV irradiation at 350 nm, the absorption for benzodioxinone at 325 nm diminished, and the absorption of benzophenone at 360 nm increased where irradiation of both compounds, caged photoinitiator and the released photoinitiator, was done using a single wavelength 350 nm (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL of Sandstedt in order to provide the first illumination and the second illumination are generated by the same illumination source with a common center wavelength as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph) to improve adjusting the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 7-8 and 10, Sandstedt does not disclose common center wavelength is selected such that the first absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex at the common center wavelength is at least 0.1 percent of the first maximum; and the second absorptivity of the free photoinitiator at the common center wavelength is at least 0.1 percent of the second maximum. However, Tasdelen discloses cage-photoinitiator benzodioxinone having absorption max at 325 nm, absorbs at least 10 percent of that maximum at 350.nm that was used for actual irradiation, and absorptivity of the photoinitiator benzophenone at 360 nm is about the same, or 80 to 100 percent, compared to absorptivity at 350 nm (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL of Sandstedt, in order to provide the common center wavelength to be selected such that the first absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex at the common center wavelength is at least 0.1 percent of the first maximum; and the second absorptivity of the free photoinitiator at the common center wavelength is at least 0.1 percent of the second maximum as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column,' first paragraph), to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] or Sandstedt).
For claim 11, Sandstedt does not disclose the common center wavelength is selected such that the first absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex at the common center wavelength is in a range of 10-5,000 L/(mol cm), and the second absorptivity of the free photoinitiator at the common center wavelength is in a range of 10-5,000 L/(mol cm). However, Tasdelen discloses absorption of both cage-photoinitiator benzodioxinone and photoinitiator benzophenone in 3 x10-6 mol solution is the same A350=0.1 at the 350 nm that was used for actual irradiation, at about 3,000 L/(mol cm)(page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first
paragraph). It would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL as disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to have provided for the common center wavelength selected such that the first absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex at the common center wavelength is in a range of 10-5,000 L/(mol cm); and the second absorptivity of the free photoinitiator at the common center wavelength is in a range of 10-5,000 L/(mol cm) as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page ·1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph) to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph (0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 12, Sandstedt does not disclose the first peak wavelength to be shorter than the second peak wavelength. However, Tasdelen discloses that upon UV irradiation at 350 nm, the absorption for cage-photoinitiator benzodioxinone at 325 nm is rapidly diminished, whereas the absorption for released photoinitiator benzophenone at 360 nm is increased, where 325 nm is shorter than 360 nm (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL of Sandstedt, in order to provide for a first peak wavelength that is shorter than the second peak wavelength as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph) to improve the methodology of adjusting the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 13, 14, Sandstedt does not disclose the first maximum absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex to be greater than the second absorptivity maximum of the free photoinitiator. However, Tasdelen discloses that the absorptivity of cage-photoinitiator benzodioxinone at 325 nm is greater than absorptivity of the released photoinitiator benzophenone at 360 nm (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394,
first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to have provided the first maximum absorptivity of the cage-photoinitiator complex to be greater than the second absorptivity maximum of the free photoinitiator as disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph) to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claim 15, Sandstedt in combination with Tasdelen, disclose the LAL of claim. Sandstedt further discloses a refraction modulating composition (RMC) comprises diffused or mobile monomers 14 having MW 1000 g/mole, which is the molecular weight of oligomers or macromers. RMC monomers are poly-siloxanes, where the arrangement of the polymer matrix and oligomers or macromers shown in figure 1, is similar to arrangement of mobile macromers shown in figure 1 of the instant application (figure 1; paragraphs (0037], (0046], (0050], (0103]).
Sandstedt does not disclose free photoinitiator is Norrish type I, and thereby, after getting activated by the second illumination, the activated photoinitiator is capable of directly inducing the polymerization reaction. However, Tasdelen discloses that the free photoinitiator is Norrish type I, and thereby, after getting activated by the second illumination, the activated photoinitiator is capable of directly inducing the polymerization reaction (See at least scheme 3) where the released photoinitiator benzophenone reacts with the monomer directly producing the monomer radical, without involvement of additional chemicals required for Norrish type II initiator (page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to modify the LAL disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to have provided Norrish type I as free photoinitiator such that after getting activated by the second illumination, the activated photoinitiator is capable of directly inducing the polymerization reaction according to the teachings of Tasdelen (page 1394, .figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3; page 1394, first column, first paragraph), to improve the methodology of adjusting of the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
For claims 18-21, the elution profile of claims 18 and 19 is a characteristic of hydrophilic free photoinitiator being that the free photoinitiator benzophenone of Tasdelen and of the claims being the same; the second illumination of claim 20 and the first and second illumination of claim 21 are characteristic of the LAL.
For claim 22, Sandstedt does not disclose that the cage-photoinitiator complex is 5-hydroxy-2,2-diphenyl-4H-benzo-[1,3]dioxinone (caged benzophenone (BP)) and the free photoinitiator is benzophenone (BP). However, Tasdelen discloses 5-hydroxy-2,2-diphenyl-4H-benzo-[1,3]dioxinone which is the cage-photoinitiator complex of claim 22 and benzophenone (BP) which meets the limitation of free photoinitiator of claim 22. The exposure to light of Benzodioxinone (caged benzophenone (BP)) results in formation of the Benzophenone (BP), where the formulas of Benzodioxinone and Benzophenone are identical to the formulas of 5-hydroxy-2,2-diphenyl-4H-benzo-(1,3]dioxinone and benzophenone of instant claim 22 (see the abstract; page 1393, scheme 1; page 1394, scheme 3 of Tasdelen). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modified the LAL disclosed by Sandstedt, in order to provide for the cage-photoinitiator complex 5-hydroxy-2,2-diphenyl-4H-benzo-[1,3]dioxinone (caged benzophenone BP) and benzophenone (BP) as the free photoinitiator disclosed by Tasdelen (page 1393, scheme 1; page 1394, figure 1; page 1394, scheme 3), to adjust the refractive index of a particular optical area of the lens by light induced polymerization and changing lens power (paragraph [0037] of Sandstedt).
No claim is allowed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLESSING M FUBARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-6 pm (M-T).
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, Brian Yong Kwon can be reached at 5712720581. 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.
/BLESSING M FUBARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613