1.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.
Claim(s) 3-9 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al 5,869,658 in view of Japanese Patent 2020-164692 essentially for reasons of record noting the following.
Applicant has cancelled claims 18 and 19 and placed certain aspects thereof into independent claim 3—namely, the concentration of the acyclic methacrylate to be 70% or more with the concentration of the alicyclic bifunctional methacrylate being 1-20% by mass. It is noted that JP -692 teaches a concentration of the latter to be 50% or more (ie, 50-80%) by mass, with the concentration of the acyclic being at most 20% by mass. Essentially, JP -692 teaches that the instant components would be used in the methacrylate composition, the only difference being that the percentages of each by mass are reversed from the instant. As noted in the previous rejection, it is respectfully submitted that the exact concentration of each component would have been an obvious aspect in the combination as applied dependent on the exact properties desired for the final article. Certainly, given that it is known to combine the two different methacrylates to make a photochromic article, it would have been obvious to have combined them in whatever desired mass ratio to arrive at the desired optical and physical properties for the final article. In the absence of some unexpected result due to the instant concentrations, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the exact concentration for each methacrylate would have been within the skill level of the art.
2.Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to arrive at the instant method when combining Lin et al and JP -692 since the latter teaches methacrylate concentrations that would not be encompassed by the instant claims. Indeed, the main component of the instant –the acyclic—is the minor component of JP -692 while the minor component of the instant—the alicyclic—is the major component of JP -692. However, it is clear that JP -692 discloses employing the same methacrylates, albeit in a different concentration than the instant. It is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been able to determine suitable concentrations for each methacrylate based on the desired optical and physical properties desired for the final article.
3.THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights