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 06/08/2026.
3. Claims 1, 3, 7-10 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7-10 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1, 7 are amended. Claim6 is cancelled. Claims 2, 4-5, 11-12 are previously cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1, 3, 7-10 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 03/11/2026 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3 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 (Page 2, [0021]; Page 10, [0097], Table 1, Example 3), (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]), wherein in general, the UV blocker is present in the one or more second solvent solutions in an amount ranging from about 0.05 to about 3 wt. % or from about 0.05 to about 0.75 wt. % (Page 8, [0068]; overlapping range) 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).
8. 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 7 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]).
9. Claims 1, 3, 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 polycarbonate (PC)-based resin (Page 2, [0024]; Page 3, [0035]; Page 3, [0045], Page 6, [0101] Examples, Table 7), 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]), wherein in general, the UV blocker is present in the one or more second solvent solutions in an amount ranging from about 0.05 to about 3 wt. % or from about 0.05 to about 0.75 wt. % (Page 8, [0068]; overlapping range) 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 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]).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that DiBella ’544 did not specify the concentration of the UV blocker at the level of the lens composition containing the resin and the UV blocker. Furthermore, DiBella's product is an ophthalmic hydrogel (5-80% water content) contact lens, not a camera lens, and differs from the instant application in that it uses a resin that cannot be processed via the compounding process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's argument is rendered moot since the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiBella ‘544 is deemed withdrawn. 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]), wherein in general, the UV blocker is present in the one or more second solvent solutions in an amount ranging from about 0.05 to about 3 wt. % or from about 0.05 to about 0.75 wt. % (Page 8, [0068]; overlapping range) 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]).
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]).
Thus, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariki ’168 in view of DiBella ’544 or Abe ’542 is maintained.
The applicant is invited to submit declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., a composition for a camera module lens) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. The declaration should include a description of precisely what was tested. It must include both the invention as claimed, and the closest prior art. A description of all of the test conditions such as test results should be clearly indicated. The results must include both the results of the test performed on the invention as claimed, and the results of the test performed on the closest prior art, an analysis of the test results. Furthermore, the comparison must be under the substantially the same conditions except for the novel features of the invention, and precisely what was done should be recited in the declaration, e.g., the actual steps carried out, the materials employed, and the results obtained should be spelled out. Nothing concerning the work relied upon should be left to conjecture. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
12. 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
06/17/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights