DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
3. Claims 1-12, 15-19, 21-25 are pending. Claims 15-19, 23-25 are under examination on the merits. Claims 13-14, 20 are previously cancelled. Claims 1-12, 21-22 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 15-19, 23-25 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 11/26/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 15-16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawaguchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0171682 A1, hereinafter “’682”).
Regarding claims 15-16: ‘682 discloses a polymerizable liquid composition for the manufacturing of an optical material (Page 1, [0001]; Page 17, Claim 1), comprising: A) at least one polymerizable component comprising at least one diallyl compound (Page 1, [0019]; Page 4, [0058]; Page 5, [0076]-[0077]; Page 17, Claim 1) such as RAV 7AT (Poly(allyl carbonate) compound of diethylene glycol and pentaerythritol and oligomers thereof (Page 15, [0229]), C) at least one kind compound (C) corresponding to B &C of the instant compounds selected from compounds represented by General Formulas (3) to (6), wherein the compound (3) is UV light-absorbing agent (Page 7, [0104]; Page 17, Claim 1) such as Viosorb 583, 2-(2-hydroxy-5-t-octylphenyl) benzotriazole (Page 15, [0232]) or Tinuvin 326, 2-(3-t-butyl-2-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)-5-chlorobenzotriazole (Page 15, [0233]), the compound (5) is tetraazaporphyrin dye (Page 1, [0019]; Page 8, [0119]) such as PD-311S, tetra-t-butyl-tetraazaporphyrin/copper complex represented by Formula (5a)(Page 15, [0231]), and the compound (6) is HEV light-absorbing agent (Page 1, [0019]; Page 8, [0121]) such as Hostavin PR-25, (p-methoxybenzy lidene) dimethyl malonate (Page 15, [0234]) or Plast Blue 8514, anthraquinone-based dye (Page 15, [0235]; Page 17, Claim 1), and D) at least one peroxydicarbonate ester as sole radical polymerization initiator (Page 1, [0019]; Page 10, [0139]; Page 10, [0154]; Page 17, Claim 1) such as Peroyl TCP, bis (4-t-butylcyclohexyl) peroxydicarbonate (Page 15, [0239]).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘682 discloses the tetraazaporphyrin dye having X1 to X4 each individually represents a tert-butyl group (Page 8, [0119]), Y1 to Y4 each individually represents a hydrogen atom group (Page 2, [0023]-[0024]; Page 8, [0116]; Page 8, [0119]) in the amount of 0.01 ppm or more and 50 ppm or less in terms of the weight basis with respect to an allyl carbonate compound (A) including two or more allyloxycarbonyl groups, and a (meth)acrylate compound (B) including two or more (meth)acryl groups (Page 1, [0019], preferably 0.1 ppm or more and 30 ppm or less, and more preferably 0.5 ppm or more and 20 ppm or less (Page 8, [0102]).
Regarding claim 23: ‘682 discloses the polymerizable liquid composition for the manufacturing of an optical material (Page 1, [0001]; Page 17, Claim 1), wherein the tetraazaporphyrin dye is present in an amount within a range of from 1.35 ppm to 16.9 ppm (Page 8, [0102]; Page 17, Table 1, Example 1).
The ‘682 reference specifically or inherently meets each of the claimed limitations. The reference is anticipatory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 17-19, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al. (US Pub. No.2021/0171682 A1, hereinafter “’682”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0006563 A1, hereinafter “’563”).
Regarding claims 17-19, 24-25: The disclosure of ‘682 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘682 does not expressly teach Y1 to Y4 each individually represents a fluorophenyl group.
‘563 teaches a polymerizable liquid composition for the manufacturing of an optical material (Page 18, Table 1). ‘563 teaches a coloring material such as the azaporphyrin-based dye is not particularly limited but may be appropriately selected according to the purpose. Examples thereof include a tetra-t-butyl-tetraazaporphyrin metal complex and a tetra-m-fluorophenyl-tetraazaporphyrin metal complex. The azaporphyrin-based dye may also be a compound with the pyrrole ring of the tetraazaporphyrin metal complex substituted with two different substituents, a t-butyl group and an o-fluorophenyl group, represented by (Page 8, [0131]) with benefit of providing azaporphyrin-based dyes having various substituents and various central metals, and depending on the combination thereof, the absorption wavelength region and the half-value width of absorption vary. It is preferable to appropriately select an azaporphyrin-based dye that has a relatively small half-value width of absorption wavelength and is capable of selectively absorbing light of a desired wavelength region. In this case, light resistance may also be taken into consideration (Page 8, [0130]).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art of the polymerizable composition for an optical material, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tetraazaporphyrin dye substituents by ‘682, so as to include Y1 to Y4 each individually represents a fluorophenyl group as taught by ‘563, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing azaporphyrin-based dyes having various substituents and various central metals, and depending on the combination thereof, the absorption wavelength region and the half-value width of absorption vary. It is preferable to appropriately select an azaporphyrin-based dye that has a relatively small half-value width of absorption wavelength and is capable of selectively absorbing light of a desired wavelength region. In this case, light resistance may also be taken into consideration as suggested by ‘563 (Page 8, [0130]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held to be a prima facie case of obviousness since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element (i.e. functional group) shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification wherein the side chains syntheses merely done by routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant that the Kawaguchi ‘682 disclose that the "polymerization initiator (D) includ[es] at least a radical polymerization initiator (D1) and a radical polymerization initiator (D2). ‘682 fails to teach at least one peroxydicarbonate ester as sole radical polymerization initiator.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the examiner is considering the limitation of “at least one peroxydicarbonate ester as sole radical polymerization initiator” as indefinite limitation in claim 15, since the definition of “at least one peroxydicarbonate ester” cannot be as sole radical polymerization initiator (i.e., more than one initiator) OR the Applicant is intended to have only radical polymerization initiator consisting of one or more peroxydicarbonate ester.
Secondly, the preamble recites a polymerizable liquid composition, comprising the mixture of ingredient such as A+D. The present claims “Comprising” language leaves the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts, see Ex parte Davis et al., 80 USPQ 448 (PTO Ed. App. 1948). Furthermore, the ingredient D as stated “at least one peroxydicarbonate ester as sole radical polymerization initiator” fails to limit the ingredients D in “polymerizable liquid composition”, when the term should be given its ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation. The “comprising” language does not necessarily exclude the other class of initiator renders the polymerizable liquid composition open to the inclusion of unspecified ingredients, see Exparte Davis et al. (Bd of Appeals), 80 USPQ 448.
Accordingly, in the view of the above discussion, the request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance, and hence the rejection is maintained.
11. 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.
Examiner Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/11/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov