DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1, 3 and 6-13 in the reply filed on 7/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that special technical feature did not remove unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the invention was found to lack unity as evidenced by the enclosed action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023, 3/19/2026 and 4/30/2026 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0166673 A1) to Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang) in view of the teachings of (US 2002/0165324 A1) to Bowers et al. (hereinafter Bowers).
Huang is directed toward contact lenses formed from hydrophilized polydiorganosiloxane crosslinked materials. Huang discloses at paragraph [0099] that the composition is used to form a silicone hydrogel contact lens. Huang discloses at paragraph [0100] that the preferred hydrophilic monomer is a methacrylic acid. Huang discloses at paragraph [0063] that the crosslinker is formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
173
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above noted formula 1 reads on Applicants covalent bond of Formula 1 that contains an epoxy group that reacts with the methacrylic acid hydrophilic polymer.
Bowers is directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers. Huang and Bowers are both directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers and therefore are analogous art. Bowers teaches at paragraph [0004] that the comonomers have improved transparency and swellability when used in a contact lens and would motivate one skilled in the art to combine teachings for reaction with a hydrophilic monomer for the contact lens may be a methacrylic acid.
PNG
media_image2.png
247
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bowers teaches at paragraph [0092] that a preferred comonomer is Compound C:
PNG
media_image2.png
247
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound C reads on Applicants comonomer (4)
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Huang in the view of the teachings of Bowers to produce a crosslinked contact lens having improved transparency and swellability that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 3 and 8-11.
7. Claims 1, 3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0166673 A1) to Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang) in view of the teachings of (US 2002/0165324 A1) to Bowers et al. (hereinafter Bowers) in further view of (JP 2017146334 A) to Masatomo et al. (hereinafter Masatomo).
Huang is directed toward contact lenses formed from hydrophilized polydiorganosiloxane crosslinked materials. Huang discloses at paragraph [0099] that the composition is used to form a silicone hydrogel contact lens. Huang discloses at paragraph [0100] that the preferred hydrophilic monomer is a methacrylic acid. Huang discloses at paragraph [0063] that the crosslinker is formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
173
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above noted formula 1 reads on Applicants covalent bond of Formula 1 that contains an epoxy group that reacts with the methacrylic acid hydrophilic polymer.
Bowers is directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers. Huang and Bowers are both directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers and therefore are analogous art. Bowers teaches at paragraph [0004] that the comonomers have improved transparency and swellability when used in a contact lens and would motivate one skilled in the art to combine teachings for reaction with a hydrophilic monomer for the contact lens may be a methacrylic acid.
PNG
media_image2.png
247
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bowers teaches at paragraph [0092] that a preferred comonomer is Compound C:
PNG
media_image2.png
247
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound C reads on Applicants comonomer (4)
Masamoto is directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers. Huang and Masamoto are both directed toward contact lens compositions containing methacrylic acid polymers and therefore are analogous art. Masamoto provides examples of contacts using hydrophilic material examples of both methacrylic acid and aminoethyl methacrylate and therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to use either as an obvious functionally equivalent monomer.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Huang in the view of the teachings of Bowers and Masamoto to produce a crosslinked contact lens having improved transparency and swellability that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 3 and 6-13.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
9. 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.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights