Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/574,427

SOFT CONTACT LENS SOLUTION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
MRUK, BRIAN P
Art Unit
1761
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nof Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
964 granted / 1301 resolved
+9.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1347
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1301 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600927
PHOSPHORUS FREE LOW TEMPERATURE WARE WASH DETERGENT FOR REDUCING SCALE BUILD-UP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600923
A LAUNDRY CARE OR DISH CARE COMPOSITION COMPRISING A POLY ALPHA-1,6-GLUCAN DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595443
Organic Acid Cleaning, Disinfecting and Sanitizing Wet Wipe Composition
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590269
OBTAINING, FORMULATING AND PRODUCING OXIDIZABLE ORGANIC PLANT AND MINERAL CARBON FOR REMEDIATION, RECOVERY, CONDITIONING OF SOIL, SUBSOIL, WATER SOURCES IMPREGNATED WITH FATS, OILS AND HYDROCARBONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577499
Post Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) Cleaning
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1301 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month