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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II, A, and ophthalmic lens, claims 16-20, 22-24, 26 and 29 in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the cited reference does not teach the common technical feature, specifically the optical features as recited in the presently claim 16. This is not found persuasive because the applicant does not provide experimental data to show the light filtering material of cited prior art, which contain the same semi-conductive particles as used in the present application, does not possess the same optical features. Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 21, 25 and 27-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 16-20, 22-24, 26 and 29 are currently under examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20, 22-24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when the claim recites “a local maximum absorbance of highest wavelength in the range of 350 nm to 500 nm”, because the recitation causes confusion, it is not clear what is the “highest wavelength”. In the office action, it is taken that the light filtering material has a local maximum absorbance in a wavelength range of 350 nm to 500 nm”. The claims 17-20, 22-24, 26 and 29 are also rejected for depending from claim 16, thus inclusion of its indefinite features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 16-20, 23-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al (CN 110746556, of record, ‘556 hereafter).
Regarding claims 16-20 and 23-24, ‘556 discloses a light filtering material comprising at least one matrix material being an organic matrix, and semi-conductive nanoparticles which are dispersed in said matrix material ([0005], [0014]-[0016], Examples); wherein the semi-conductive nanoparticles are CdS nanoparticles capped by an organic layer which satisfying present claims 18-20 and 23 ([0042], [0045]), and the light filtering material has a maximum absorbance in the wavelength range from 435 to 446 nm with an narrow absorbance bandwidth about 20 nm ([0045], Fig. 2b, from lowest transmittance (Amax) to highest transmittance (Amin) is in the 30 nm range), which apparently satisfies instantly recited wavelength value of λ0.5-λ0.9 and λ0.1-λ0.9 as in claims 16 and 17. In addition, since the light filtering material comprising semi-conductive nanoparticles being CdS, which is identical to the semi-conductive nanoparticles as used in the present application (See Example 2), it is reasonable to expect that the light filtering material of ‘556 would have possessed the same optical properties including the wavelength value of λ0.5-λ0.9 and λ0.1-λ0.9 as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 29, ‘556 also discloses that the light filtering material can be used as ophthalmic lens to prevent eye damage from blue light ([0004]-[0008]).
Claims 16-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jang et al (CN 104993037, ‘037 hereafter, cited paragraphs please see original document in Chinese).
Regarding claims 16-20 and 23-24, ‘037 discloses a light filtering material comprising at least one matrix material being PC, epoxy or PMMA, and semi-conductive nanoparticles which are dispersed in said matrix material ([0008]-[0017], [0037]-[0046], [0055]-[0059]); wherein the semi-conductive nanoparticles are TiO2, In2O3 or WO3 nanoparticles capped by a silicon dioxide layer, in an amount range of 100 ppm to 1000 ppm based on total weight of the light filtering material, which satisfying present claims 18-20 and 22-24 ([0038], [0041], [0044]), and the light filtering material has a maximum absorbance in the blue light wavelength in the wavelength of 400 to 500 nm with an narrow absorbance bandwidth around 30 nm ([0046], Fig. 2), which apparently satisfies instantly recited wavelength value of λ0.5-λ0.9 and λ0.1-λ0.9 as in claims 16 and 17. In addition, since the light filtering material comprising semi-conductive nanoparticles being TiO2, In2O3 or WO3, which are the semi-conductive nanoparticles as presently claimed (See claim 18), it is reasonable to expect that the light filtering material of ‘037 would have possessed the same optical properties including the wavelength value of λ0.5-λ0.9 and λ0.1-λ0.9 as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al (CN 110746556, of record, ‘556 hereafter) in view of Pousthomis et al (US 2018/0348577, ‘577 hereafter).
Regarding claim 26, ‘556 teaches all the limitations of claim 16, but ‘556 does not disclose that the matric being an inorganic matrix. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘577 discloses that either organic matric such polymer resins or inorganic matrix such as sol-gel material or mineral oxide can be used as a matric in a color conversion layer comprising semi-conductive nanoparticles to render the layer having desired optical properties ([0008]-[0015], [0916]-[0942], [0955]-[0958], [0963], [0964]). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an inorganic material as known in the art, to replace organic material of ‘556, to render instantly claimed light filtering material, because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results of optical properties as claimed (See MPEP 2143 B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights