1.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.
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wallfeld et al 2021/0260842 in view of Strickler et al 2009/0186067 essentially for reasons of record noting the following.
The claims have been amended to recite that the object is transparent (claims 35 and 36) and is an ocular implant, IOL or contact lens (claim 35—claim 36 already has such a recitation). However, the primary reference teaches the particular object at paragraph 0001 and of course such objects would be transparent. It is maintained that the article itself does not “know” how it is being processed and hence the exact method steps employed do not have to be met. All that needs to be met in the instant article claims is a transparent ocular implant, IOL or contact lens which has been polished in a region which also has some degree of crosslinking. Van Wallfeld et al would teach all but the latter aspect and the crosslinking is submitted to have been obvious in combination with Strickler et al for reasons already noted and taught in Strickler et al—namely, improved mechanical properties. Note also that Strickler et al discloses that the crosslinked materials would form devices such as contact lenses and IOLs—see the last three lines of paragraph 0014. Additionally, paragraph 0009 of the primary reference teaches that the laser ablation or polishing would not damage the treated material. Hence, given that it would have been obvious to crosslink the material, as taught in Strickler et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect there to be any damage to the crosslinked --and polished—region. There is simply no reason why one pf ordinary skill in this art would not have found the instant article as obvious over the prior art teachings. Again, applicant is reminded that the instant steps of the method do not have to be met to meet the article limitations. Hence, the argument that claim 35 defines over the art for the same reasons as claim 17 is not probative. Clearly, it would not be required to show any decrosslinking in the applied art to meet instant claim 35—or claim 36—but merely that a treated regions have some degree of crosslinking. This would be met in combining Strickler et al with Von Wallfeld et al. Concerning instant claim 36, it is not required that the art show that the region be irradiated upon processing to comprise irradiation crosslinked plastic, since the plastic would have been expected to retain its crosslinking after the laser polishing. Also, such crosslinking would have occurred through irradiation anyway, albeit perhaps in a different sequence than performed in the instant method. Again, the instant method has been allowed. However, the article claims, be they product-by-process or simple product claims, are maintained as being clearly obvious over the prior art as applied.
2.Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the instant method. However, they are not persuasive with respect to the instant article claims 35 and 36 for reasons essentially set forth in paragraph 1, supra.
3.THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights