DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/16/2026.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6-10 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6-10 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 6 are amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 11-12 are cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered, and they are
persuasive, thus rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-10 are withdrawn. However, based on newly found
prior art, this Office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement submitted on 01/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiBella, JR. et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0339544 A1, hereinafter “’544”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘544 discloses an ophthalmic device (Page 1, [0001]) comprising a UV blocker of general formula I as set forth (Page 1, [0008]) entrapped in a polymerization product of a monomeric mixture comprising one or more ophthalmic device-forming monomers as resin (Page 1, [0015]) such as at least one silicone-containing monomer and at least one hydrophilic monomer (Page 2, [0024]), wherein the UV blocker is BTDT—2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol in the amount of 0.1% UV blocker (Page 9, [0085]; Page 10, [0092]).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is submitted that the recitation of “for a camera module” is considered intended use. The intended use of the claimed invention must resul544t in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3: ‘544 discloses an ophthalmic device (Page 1, [0001]), wherein unit molecules of the UV blocking additive are dispersed between polymer chains of the resin (Page 9, [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0299168 A1, hereinafter “’168”) in view of DiBella, JR. et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0339544 A1, hereinafter “’544”) or Abe et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0176542 A1, hereinafter “’542”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘168 teaches spectacle lens made of a polycarbonate resin composition (Page 3, [0026]) comprises (1) 100 parts by weight of a polycarbonate resin, (2) 0.05 to 0.5 part by weight of (A) at least one ultraviolet light absorber selected from the group consisting of 2-(2'-hydroxy-5'-methylphenyl)benzotriazole and 2-(2'-hydroxy-5'-tert-octylphenyl)benzotriazole (Page 10, [0097],Table 1, Example 3). ‘168 does not expressly teach the UV blocking additive has a chemical structure of Formula 1 as set forth.
However, ‘544 teaches an ophthalmic device comprising a UV blocker of general formula I as set forth (Page 1, [0008]) entrapped in a polymerization product of a monomeric mixture comprising one or more ophthalmic device-forming monomers (Page 1, [0015]), wherein the UV blocker is BTDT—2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol (Page 9, [0085]) with benefit of providing UV blocking ophthalmic device demonstrates sufficient blocking of UV light to meet both FDA Class I and II specifications for UV blocking (Page 1, [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, ‘542 teaches a resin composition comprising (Page 1, [0010], being dispersed in a resin in combination; (a) a cyanoacrylate ultraviolet ray-absorber (Page 1, [0011]), and (b) a benzotriazole ultraviolet ray-absorber (Page 1, [0012]) such as 2-(2'-hydroxy-3',5'-di-t-pentylphenyl)benzotriazole (Page 2, [0037]) in amounts of 0.001 to 10 parts by weight and, more particularly, in amounts of 0.01 to 3 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the resin in order to prevent defective light resistance caused by too small amount of blending, to prevent coloring of the resin caused by the color of the ultraviolet ray-absorber itself that is used in too large amounts, and to prevent a decrease in the mechanical strength (Page 3, [0038]) with benefit of providing a resin composition having excellent light resistance, which permits molded articles thereof to develop yellow color very little and is suited for use as an optical material (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the composition for an optical articles, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive by ‘168, so as to include 2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive as taught by ‘544, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing UV blocking ophthalmic device demonstrates sufficient blocking of UV light to meet both FDA Class I and II specifications for UV blocking as suggested by ‘544 (Page 1, [0016]).
In an analogous art of the composition for an optical articles, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive by ‘168, so as to include 2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive as taught by ‘542, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a resin composition having excellent light resistance, which permits molded articles thereof to develop yellow color very little and is suited for use as an optical material as suggested by ‘542 (Page 1, [0002]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
It is submitted that the recitation of “for a camera module” is considered intended use. The intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3: ‘168 teaches the spectacle lens made of a polycarbonate resin composition (Page 3, [0026]), wherein unit molecules of the UV blocking additive are dispersed between polymer chains of the resin (Page 10, [0097], Table 1, Example 3).
Regarding claim 6: ‘168 teaches the spectacle lens (Page 3, [0026]), wherein the resin is formed of one of a polycarbonate (PC)-based resin (Page 10, [0097], Table 1, Example 3).
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0299168 A1, hereinafter “’168”) in view of DiBella, JR. et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/033 9544 A1, hereinafter “’544”) or Abe et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0176542 A1, hereinafter “’542”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US Pub No. 2016/0313472 A1, hereinafter “’472”).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of ‘168 in view of ‘544 or ‘542 is adequately set forth in paragraph 10 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘168 in view of ‘544 or ‘542 does not expressly teach the polyolefin-based resin is one of a cyclo-olefin co-polymer (COC)-based resin and a cyclo-olefin polymer (COP)-based resin.
However, ‘472 teaches an optical lens assembly with dual molded lens element. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to an optical lens assembly applicable to an electronic device (Page 1, [0003]). FIG. 2 is an enlarged view of the dual molded lens element 120 of the optical lens assembly 100 of FIG. 1. In detail, the dual molded lens element 120 is made of plastic material, and includes a transparent portion 121 and a light absorbing portion 122. The transparent portion 121 has an optical effective region 121a, wherein the transparent portion 121 is made of transparent PC (Polycarbonate) with high refraction. The light absorbing portion 122 is made of black PC. That is, the dual molded lens element has two plastic parts with different colors by different color arrangement of the transparent portion 121 and the light absorbing portion 122 (Page 2, [0024[). The material of the transparent portion 121 not only can be transparent PC with high refraction, such as Teijin SP-series, EP-series of MGC, but also can be Polyester, such as OKP-series of OGC, or others conventional optical plastic material. The material of the light absorbing portion 122 should correspond to the material of the transparent portion 121, which can be black PC, such as Teijin L-1225Y, or the material which can be passed through by the infrared light (which is transparent to an infrared light). Of course, the material of the light absorbing portion 122 is not limited to black PC. When the transparent portion 121 is made of the material excluding PC, such as COC, COP, PMMA etc., the light absorbing portion 122 can be made of the material as the transparent portion 121, and the material can be mixed with black material for producing the black plastic material as the material of the light absorbing portion 122. According to the camera module, the proper IR cut filter can be provided, and will not affect the property providing by the light absorbing portion (Page 2, [0035]).
In an analogous art of the composition for an optical articles, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resin by ‘168, so as to include the polyolefin-based resin is one of a cyclo-olefin co-polymer (COC)-based resin and a cyclo-olefin polymer (COP)-based resin as taught by ‘472, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a resin for the camera module, the proper IR cut filter can be provided, and will not affect the property providing by the light absorbing portion as suggested by ‘472 (Page 2, [0035]).
12. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0070985 A1, hereinafter “’985”) in view of DiBella, JR. et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0339544 A1, hereinafter “’544”) or Abe et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0176542 A1, hereinafter “’542”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘985 teaches a camera module (Page 1, [0002]), comprising: a plurality of lenses (Page 1, [0005], Fig 1) comprising: a resin (Page 2, [0024]; Page 3, [0035]), and 0.01 to 0.1% by weight of a benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive (Page 5, [0074]) with respect to a total weight of the composition with benefit of providing the composition having excellent weather resistance and yellowing resistance (Page 5, [0074]). ‘985 does not expressly teach the UV blocking additive has a chemical structure of Formula 1 as set forth.
However, ‘544 teaches an ophthalmic device comprising a UV blocker of general formula I as set forth (Page 1, [0008]) entrapped in a polymerization product of a monomeric mixture comprising one or more ophthalmic device-forming monomers (Page 1, [0015]), wherein the UV blocker is BTDT—2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol (Page 9, [0085]) with benefit of providing UV blocking ophthalmic device demonstrates sufficient blocking of UV light to meet both FDA Class I and II specifications for UV blocking (Page 1, [0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, ‘542 teaches a resin composition comprising (Page 1, [0010], being dispersed in a resin in combination; (a) a cyanoacrylate ultraviolet ray-absorber (Page 1, [0011]), and (b) a benzotriazole ultraviolet ray-absorber (Page 1, [0012]) such as 2-(2'-hydroxy-3',5'-di-t-pentylphenyl)benzotriazole (Page 2, [0037]) in amounts of 0.001 to 10 parts by weight and, more particularly, in amounts of 0.01 to 3 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the resin in order to prevent defective light resistance caused by too small amount of blending, to prevent coloring of the resin caused by the color of the ultraviolet ray-absorber itself that is used in too large amounts, and to prevent a decrease in the mechanical strength (Page 3, [0038]) with benefit of providing a resin composition having excellent light resistance, which permits molded articles thereof to develop yellow color very little and is suited for use as an optical material (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the composition for an optical articles, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive by ‘168, so as to include 2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive as taught by ‘544, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing UV blocking ophthalmic device demonstrates sufficient blocking of UV light to meet both FDA Class I and II specifications for UV blocking as suggested by ‘544 (Page 1, [0016]).
In an analogous art of the composition for an optical articles, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive by ‘168, so as to include 2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive as taught by ‘542, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a resin composition having excellent light resistance, which permits molded articles thereof to develop yellow color very little and is suited for use as an optical material as suggested by ‘542 (Page 1, [0002]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two benzotriazole-based ultraviolet (UV) blocking additive) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Regarding claim 3: ‘985 teaches the composition for a camera module lens (Page 1, [0002]), wherein unit molecules of the UV blocking additive are dispersed between polymer chains of the resin (Page 6, [0101] Examples, Table 7).
Regarding claim 6: ‘985 teaches the composition for a camera module lens (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the resin is formed of one of a polycarbonate (PC)-based resin (Page 3, [0045], Page 6, [0101] Examples, Table 7).
Regarding claim 8: ‘985 teaches a camera module lens comprising the composition for a camera module lens (Page 1, [0002]; Page 9, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 9: ‘985 teaches the camera module lens (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the camera module lens is manufactured by compounding the resin and the UV blocking additive (Page 6, [0101] Examples, Table 7; Page 9, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 10: ‘985 teaches the camera module lens (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the camera module lens is disposed in an automotive camera module (Page 1, [0003]-[0004]; Page 2, [0014]; Page 3, [0037]).
Examiner Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/09/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights