DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 20, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 3 and 8. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 have been cancelled. New claims 10-14 have been added. Currently, claims 3-4, 7-8 and 10-14 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20260212.
The rejection of claims 3-4 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al, US 2015/0024987, in view of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479, is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 10-14 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 140-180 moles of ethylene oxide and 20-40 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 in a ratio of EO/PO units of about 1 to about 5 (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 about 196 moles of ethylene oxide and about 67 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 about 196 moles of ethylene oxide and about 67 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Sadayasu, JP 2015/197479, requires the EO-PO block copolymers to be used in combination with both a polyvalent carboxylic acid and a refreshing agent, such as L-menthol, which is not required in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that the instant claims, as presently written, do not exclude the inclusion of either a polyvalent carboxylic acid or a refreshing agent, such as L-menthol, since the transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended.
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that applicant’s results in Tables 1-3 of the instant specification are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Specifically, instant claim 1 requires 0.001-1 w/v% of a copolymer (P) containing units (1a) to (1c) in ratio of 100:10 to 400:2 to 50 and having a molecular weight of 5,000-2,000,000, and 0.002-2 w/v% of a copolymer (Q) being an EO-PO block copolymer having 120-200 moles of EO and 10-70 moles of PO and an EO content of 60-90% by weight, whereas the Examples in Tables 1-3 require 0.01 grams of three very specific Copolymers (P) and 2.0 g of two very specific Copolymers (Q). Accordingly, the examiner asserts that applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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.
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
June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights