DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 6, 10 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 5/18/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2021/0163684, equivalent with WO2020235913) in view of Horikoshi et al (JP2004339329).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JP2004339329 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10: Kim teaches a curable composition for a high refractive index optical material comprising an episulfide
PNG
media_image1.png
83
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a cyclic compound
PNG
media_image2.png
227
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(table 1, example 1), the weight ratio of the cyclic compound and the episulfide is 1:6.7. Kim further teaches an optical material comprising a cured product of the curable composition (abstract).
Kim does not teach a selenium disulfide particles.
However, Horikoshi teaches including an inorganic compound such as sulfur, selenium disulfide etc, can improve the refractive index of an optical material [0017-0023]. They can be used in a combination of two. The desired particle size of sulfur is less than 60mesh so that it can be dissolved completely. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sulfur and selenium disulfide in the curable composition to adjust refractive index when a higher refractive index optical material is desired. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the particle size of selenium disulfide is smaller than 60 mesh as well so that it can be dissolved completely.
Claims 11-13: Kim is silent with respect to the properties of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Kim and Horikoshi have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2022/0204702, equivalent with WO2021085956) in view of Horikoshi et al (JP2004339329).
Claims 1-10: Choi teaches a curable composition comprising an episulfide and a compound
PNG
media_image3.png
72
193
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(claims, example 4), the weight ratio of the compound and the episulfide is 1:10. Choi further teaches an optical material comprising a cured product of the curable composition.
Choi does not teach a selenium disulfide particles.
However, Horikoshi teaches including an inorganic compound such as sulfur, selenium disulfide etc, can improve the refractive index of an optical material [0017-0023]. They can be used in a combination of two. The desired particle size of sulfur is less than 60mesh so that it can be dissolved completely. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sulfur and selenium disulfide in the curable composition to adjust refractive index when a higher refractive index optical material is desired. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the particle size of selenium disulfide is smaller than 60 mesh as well so that it can be dissolved completely.
Claims 11-13: Choi is silent with respect to the properties of the composition. However, the combination of teachings from Choi and Horikoshi have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al (JP2006265408) in view of Horikoshi et al (JP2004339329).
Claims 1-3, 6-10: Oki teaches a curable composition comprising A, B1, C and D [0012]. B1 is an aliphatic liner oligomer such as polyethylene sulfide thiol, polyethylene disulfide thiol and polyethylene polysulfide thiol, polyethylene sulfide diol polyethylene disulfide diol and polyethylene polysulfide diol [0022-0023]. D is bis(β-epithiopropyl) sulfide [0058]. Oki further teaches an optical material comprising a cured product of the curable composition
Oki does not teach a selenium disulfide particles.
However, Horikoshi teaches including an inorganic compound such as sulfur, selenium disulfide etc, can improve the refractive index of an optical material [0017-0023]. They can be used in a combination of two. The desired particle size of sulfur is less than 60mesh so that it can be dissolved completely. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include sulfur and selenium disulfide in the curable composition to adjust refractive index when a higher refractive index optical material is desired. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the particle size of selenium disulfide is smaller than 60 mesh as well so that it can be dissolved completely.
Claim 4: Oki does not explicitly disclose how many sulfide in the polysulfide section.
However, Oki discloses sulfide and disulfide and then followed with polysulfide, it is reasonably believed the polysulfide includes trisulfide and tetrasulfide, the latter results in a repeating unit of
PNG
media_image4.png
74
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 5: the composition comprises 10-50 wt% of B1 and 20-50 wt% of D. Therefore, the weight ratio would overlap the claimed range.
Claims 11-13: Oki is silent with respect to the properties of the cured article. However, the teachings from Oki and Horikoshi have rendered obvious the instantly claimed ingredients and amounts thereof. Therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed physical properties to naturally arise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding unexpected results, the data have been fully considered, however, they are insufficient to establish unexpected results given that the data is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the scope of claims. The inventive data only contains a specific compound of each ingredient as compared to the claimed genus, and the inventive data only contains a specific amount of each ingredient as compared to the claimed general recitation. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights