DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al, US 2015/0024987, in view of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479.
The primary reference of Matsuoka et al, US 2015/0024987, discloses a contact lens treatment composition comprising 0.01 to 2 weight/volume % of a polymer having structural units of formulae (1a) to 1(c), wherein R1, R2 and R5 are hydrogen or methyl, R3 and R4 are methyl or ethyl, R6 is a monovalent hydrocarbon group having 12-24 carbon atoms, n1, n2 and n3 represent a molar ratio of the structural units, and fulfill n1:n2:n3=100:10 to 400:2 to 50, and the weight average molecular weight of the polymer is 5,000 to 2,000,000 (see abstract and paragraph 18). It is further taught by Matsuoka et al that formula 1(a) is 2-9methacryloyloxy)ethyl-2’-(trimethylammonio)ethyl phosphate (see paragraph 31), that formula 1(b) is N,N-dimethylacrylamide (see paragraph 33), that formula 1(c) is lauryl methacrylate or stearyl methacrylate (see paragraph 34), that the composition contains 0.2 to 1.5 weight/volume % of a buffer, such as a phosphate (see paragraphs 42-43), and that the composition is used as a contact lens packaging solution, a contact lens wetting solution or an eye drop (see paragraph 52). Specifically, note Examples 1-1 to 2-9 and Tables 1-21.
Matsuoka et al does not teach a contact lens treatment composition that further contains 0.002 to 2 weight/volume % of a copolymer being a polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer having 120-200 moles of ethylene oxide and 10-70 moles of propylene oxide.
The secondary reference of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479, discloses an ophthalmic composition liquid for treating contact lenses that contains a polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer (see page 4, “Solution” of the English translation of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479). It is further taught by Sadayasu that the polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer enhances the moisturizing effect of the contact lens, increases the wettability of the contact lens, and further improves the contact lens (see paragraph 2 of the English translation of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479), that suitable polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymers contain 196-200 moles of ethylene oxide and 67-70 moles of propylene oxide, resulting in and ethylene oxide content of 75% (see paragraph 12 of the English translation of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479), and that the content of the polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer in the composition is 0.001-1.5% by weight (see paragraph 13 of the English translation of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of the secondary reference of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the primary reference of Matsuoka et al, US 2015/0024987, by incorporating 0.001-1.5% by weight of a polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer containing 196-200 moles of ethylene oxide and 67-70 moles of propylene oxide to enhance the moisturizing effect of the contact lens, increase the wettability of the contact lens, and further improve the contact lens. Such modification would be obvious because one would expect that the addition of a of polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer containing 196-200 moles of ethylene oxide and 67-70 moles of propylene oxide, as taught by Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479, would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous contact lens composition taught by Matsuoka et al, US 2015/0024987.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
February 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights