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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 25, 2024 and February 17, 2026 have been considered by the examiner. It should be noted that the citation appearing as lined through on the IDS filed February 17, 2026, appears so because the citation fails to provide a publication date and/or author.
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.
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 16-28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fromentin et al (U.S. Patent Number 10,308,618).
With regard to independent claim 16, although Fromentin et al teaches a transparent optical article (column 4, lines 14-17) comprising: a thermoplastic substrate (column 4, lines 22-26); at least one UV absorber (column 1, lines 15-18); and at least one fluorescing dye at least partially inhibiting transmission of light having a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500 nm (column 6, lines 58-67 and column 7, lines 26-37), wherein a spectral transmission curve of said transparent optical article has: an inflection point at a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 450 nm (Figure 1), and the slope at said inflection point is higher than or equal to 6 %/nm (Figure 1); a light cut-off wavelength higher than or equal to 400 nm (column 17, line 27, data for Light cut-off and Figure 1), the prior art fails to teach such an optical article having an average fluorescence as determined according to the standard ASTM E1247 lower than or equal to 2 % in the range from 415 nm to 445 nm. Fromentin et al does teach adjusting the relative weight of the color balancing component, i.e., the fluorescing dye (column 7, line 38-column 8, line 4), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, without undue experimentation, to adjust the amount of fluorescing dye within the optical article, as taught by Fromentin et al, to adjust the hue of the optical material and achieve the desired average fluorescence.
With regard to dependent claim 17, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein said light cut-off is at a wavelength higher than or equal to 405 nm, and said slope at said inflection point is higher than or equal to 7 %/nm (Figure 1).
With regard to dependent claim 18, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the spectral transmission curve of said transparent optical article has a light cut-off wavelength higher than or equal to 405 nm (Figure 1).
With regard to dependent claim 19, although Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, Fromentin et al fails to explicitly teach wherein said fluorescing dye is incorporated into the thermoplastic substrate in an amount ranging from 20 ppm to 500 ppm relative to the weight of said thermoplastic substrate, Fromentin et al does teach adjusting the relative weight of the color balancing component, i.e., the fluorescing dye with respect to the optical material (column 7, line 38-column 8, line 4), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, without undue experimentation, to adjust the amount of fluorescing dye within the optical article, as taught by Fromentin et al, to adjust the hue of the optical material.
With regard to dependent claim 20, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein said UV absorber is incorporated into the thermoplastic substrate in an amount ranging from 0.1 % to 1 % relative to the weight of said thermoplastic substrate (column 4, lines 27-29 and column 12, lines 34-43).
With regard to dependent claim 21, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article further defined as having a light transmission factor in the visible spectrum Tv from 380 nm to 780 m that is higher than or equal to 85 % (column 17, line 26, data for Tv).
With regard to dependent claim 22, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the transparent optical article further comprises at least one color balancing agent (column 6, lines 4-8 and 45-54).
With regard to dependent claim 23, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the transparent optical article further comprises at least one color balancing dye selected from 1,4-diamino-2,3-dichloro-9,10- anthraquinone, 1,4-bis[(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione and 12H- isoindolo [2,1-a]perimidin- 12-one (column 7, lines 1-25).
With regard to dependent claim 24, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article further defined as an ophthalmic lens (column 1, lines 15-18).
With regard to dependent claim 25, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the fluorescing dye is selected from butadienes, stilbenes, carbostyrils, coumarins, porphyrins, pyrazolines, naphthalimides and benzoxazoles (column 7, lines 37-57).
With regard to dependent claim 26, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the fluorescing dye is selected from bis-benzoxazoles, phenylcoumarins, methylcoumarins and bis-(styryl)biphenyls (column 4, lines 27-29 and column 7, lines 37-57).
With regard to dependent claim 27, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the UV absorber is selected from benzophenones, benzotriazoles, triazines, benzoxaxinones, cinnamates and oxanilides (column 12, lines 5-10).
With regard to dependent claim 28, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article wherein the UV absorber is selected from 2-hydroxybenzophenones and 2-(2-hydroxyphenyl)-benzotriazoles (column 12, lines 5-10).
With regard to dependent claim 30, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article further defined as having an average light transmission factor from 415 nm to 444 nm lower than or equal to 80 % (Figure 1 and column 17, line 27, data for T% at 430 nm).
With regard to dependent claim 31, Fromentin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 16, and further teaches such an optical article further defined as having an average light transmission factor from 445 nm to 504 nm higher than or equal to 80 % (Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 32 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Although the prior art teaches a transparent optical article comprising: a thermoplastic substrate; at least one UV absorber; and at least one fluorescing dye at least partially inhibiting transmission of light having a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500 nm, wherein a spectral transmission curve of said transparent optical article has: an inflection point at a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 450 nm, and the slope at said inflection point is higher than or equal to 6 %/nm; a light cut-off wavelength higher than or equal to 400 nm; and wherein said transparent optical article has an average fluorescence as determined according to the standard ASTM E1247 lower than or equal to 2 % in the range from 415 nm to 445 nm, the prior art fails to teach such an optical article wherein: the fluorescing dye has a maximum fluorescence emission peak in the wavelength range from 400 to 500 nm, as claimed in dependent claim 29; the UV absorber is 2-(5-chloro- 2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol and the fluorescing dye is 4,4'-bis(5- methyl-2-benzoxazolyl)stilbene, as claimed in dependent claim 32; or said at least one fluorescing dye inhibits transmission of from 10 to 50 % of light having a wavelength ranging from 410 to 440 nm, as claimed in dependent claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Farwig (U.S. Patent Number 8,210,678), Hashimoto et al (U.S. Patent Number 9,933,635), Chiu et al (U.S. Patent Number 11,029,541), Wei et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0203212) and Jallouli et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0320638) all teach transparent optical articles inhibiting transmission of light having a wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 500 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
18 March 2026