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 application is a 371 of App. No. PCT/EP2022/061451, filed on 04/29/2022. The preliminary amendment filed on 10/29/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements submitted on 10/30/2024, and 12/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "each first segment", and “each second segment” in line 9, and line 11, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-15 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 1 is construed to recite “each the at least one first segment", and “each the at least one second segment”.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the first segment" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 2 is construed to recite “wherein the at least one first segment”.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the second segment" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 4 is construed to recite “wherein the at least one second segment”.
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein each second segment" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 6 is construed to recite “wherein each the at least one second segment”.
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation "a total amount of second segment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 13 is construed to recite “a total amount of the at least one second segment”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-3, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric M King (US Pub. No.2005/0196617 A1, hereinafter “’617”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘608 discloses plano PDQ coated polycarbonate lenses (Page 20, [0249], Example 1) comprising a curable photochromic composition (Page 20, [0249]) comprising: (a) a photochromic compound, (b) a trialkoxysilane functional material having at least two trialkoxysilane groups such as A-187, and (c) a segmented polymer comprising, at least one first segment, and at least one second segment, wherein, (i) each the at least one first segment independently comprises at least one of a (meth)acrylic polymer segment, and (ii) each the at least one second segment independently comprises at least one polyurethane segment as shown below (Page 20, [0249], Example 1).
Regarding claims 2-3: ‘608 discloses the curable composition (Page 20, [0249], Example 1), wherein the at least one first segment comprises hydroxyl groups, and the segmented polymer has a hydroxyl number of less than 35 (Page 21, [0250]).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14: ‘617 discloses the curable photochromic composition (Page 2, [0014]-[0017]), further comprising a catalyst that catalyzes the formation of siloxane linkages (Page 20, [0249], Example 1).
Regarding claim 15: 617 discloses an article (Page 2, [0014]-[0017]), comprising: (A) a substrate, and (B) a photochromic layer over at least one surface of the substrate, wherein the photochromic layer is formed from the curable photochromic composition (Page 2, [0014]-[0017]; Page 21, Claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 106433608 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’608”).
Regarding claim 1: ‘608 teaches a curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]) comprising: (a) a photochromic compound (Page 8/36, [0013]), (b) a trialkoxysilane functional material having at least two trialkoxysilane groups (Page 25/36, [0095]), and (c) a segmented polymer comprising, at least one first segment, and at least one second segment, wherein, (i) each the at least one first segment independently comprises at least one of a (meth)acrylic polymer segment with a weight-average molecular weight of 500-50000 and a hydroxyl value of 20-270 (Page 22/36, [0090]), and (ii) each the at least one second segment independently comprises at least one of, a polycarbonate segment such as ABA polyols where A represents a polycarbonate block and B is a urethane block (Page 16/36, [0066]) with benefit of providing the use of thermosetting polymers, thermoplastic polycarbonates and highly crosslinked optical polymer materials as plastic substrates for photochromic articles, and further to minimize the time required for the photochromic materials contained in the coating to activate and fade (Page 7/36, [0007]).
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 selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2: ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), wherein the at least one first segment comprises hydroxyl groups (Page 22/36, [0090]).
Regarding claim 3: ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), wherein the polyacrylic acid polyol has a weight-average molecular weight of
500-50000 and a hydroxyl value of 20-270 in the segmented polymer (i.e., a hydroxyl number of less than 35; Page 22/36, [0090]).
Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549.
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘608 is adequately set forth in paragraph 12 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘608 does not expressly teach the at least one second segment is present in the segmented polymer in an amount of from 50 percent by weight to 90 percent by weight, based on total weight of the segmented polymer.
However, ‘608 teaches in one non-limiting embodiment, the degree of crosslinking can be 5%-100% of full crosslinking. In an alternative, non-limiting embodiment, the degree of crosslinking can be 30%-95% of full crosslinking, for example 35%-95%, 50%-95%, or 50%-85% (Page 11/36, [0036]).
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 mixing ratio of the at least one second segment based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 5: ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), wherein he polyacrylic acid polyol has a weight-average molecular weight of
500-50000 in the segmented polymer (i.e., the segmented polymer has a Mw of 35,000 to 250,000; Page 22/36, [0090]).
Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549.
Regarding claim 6: ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), wherein each the at least one second segment independently comprises, the polycarbonate segment, a polycarbonate-polyester segment, a polycarbonate-polyurethane segment, and a polycarbonate-polyester-polyurethane segment (Page 16/36, [0066]; Page 17/36, [0070]).
Regarding claim 14: ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), further comprising a catalyst that catalyzes the formation of siloxane linkages (Page 25/36, [0095]).
Regarding claim 15: ‘608 teaches an article comprising: (A) a substrate, and (B) a photochromic layer over at least one surface of the substrate, wherein the photochromic layer is formed from the curable photochromic composition (Page 12/36, [0040]; Page 27/36, [0110]; Page 28/36, [0112]).
15 Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 106433608 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’608”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogihara et al.(US Pub. No. 2004/0180222 A1, hereinafter “’222”).
Regarding claims 7-9: The disclosure of ‘608 is adequately set forth in paragraph 14 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘608 teaches a curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]) comprising a trialkoxysilane functional material having at least two trialkoxysilane groups (Page 25/36, [0095]). ‘608 does not expressly teach the trialkoxysilane functional material is represented by the Formula (I) as set forth, wherein n is from 2 to 4, and R¹ comprises at least one of polyvalent aliphatic hydrocarbon residue.
However, ‘222 teaches a composition for film formation which can be formed into a porous film (Page 1, [0002]) comprising 1,1,1-tri(4-trimethoxysilylmethyl)ethane, wherein R1 is polyvalent aliphatic hydrocarbon residue (Page 3, [0046]) with benefit of providing the addition of the crosslinking agent having three or four functional silicon atoms per molecule thereof, so that the mechanical strength is increased (Page 2, [0027]).
In an analogous art of the film composition, 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 trialkoxysilane functional material by ‘608, so as to include the trialkoxysilane functional material is represented by the Formula (I) as set fort as taught by ‘222, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the addition of the crosslinking agent having three or four functional silicon atoms per molecule thereof, so that the mechanical strength is increased as suggested by ‘222 (Page 2, [0027]).
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
trialkoxysilane functional materials) 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 claims 10-13: The disclosure of ‘608 in view of ‘222 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘608 in view of ‘222 does not expressly teach the trialkoxysilane functional material comprises Si in an amount of from 5.0 to 16.0 percent by weight, based on solids weight of the trialkoxysilane functional material, wherein a weight ratio of the trialkoxysilane functional material to the segmented polymer is from 80:20 to 50:50, preferably, from 75:25 to 60:40, and wherein the curable photochromic composition comprises a total amount of second segments of from 10 percent by weight to 45 percent by weight, based on total solids weight of the curable photochromic composition.
However, ‘608 teaches in one non-limiting embodiment, the degree of crosslinking can be 5%-100% of full crosslinking. In an alternative, non-limiting embodiment, the degree of crosslinking can be 30%-95% of full crosslinking, for example 35%-95%, 50%-95%, or 50%-85% (Page 11/36, [0036]). ‘222 teaches a composition for film formation which can be formed into a porous film (Page 1, [0002]) comprising 1,1,1-tri(4-trimethoxysilylmethyl)ethane, wherein R1 is polyvalent aliphatic hydrocarbon residue (Page 3, [0046]) with benefit of providing the addition of the crosslinking agent having three or four functional silicon atoms per molecule thereof, so that the mechanical strength is increased (Page 2, [0027]).
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 mixing ratio of the at least one second segment based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 14: The disclosure of ‘608 in view of ‘222 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘608 teaches the curable photochromic composition (Page 6/36, [0002]), further comprising a catalyst that catalyzes the formation of siloxane linkages (Page 25/36, [0095]).
‘222 teaches a composition for film formation which can be formed into a porous film (Page 1, [0002]) comprising 1,1,1-tri(4-trimethoxysilylmethyl)ethane, wherein R1 is polyvalent aliphatic hydrocarbon residue (Page 3, [0046]) with benefit of providing the addition of the crosslinking agent having three or four functional silicon atoms per molecule thereof, so that the mechanical strength is increased (Page 2, [0027]).
Prior-Art Cited But Not Applied
16. Any prior-art reference which is cited on FORM PTO-892 but not applied is cited of interest to show the general state of the prior-art at the time of the application’s invention. Please see Bancroft et al. (US Pat. No. 9,028,728 B2), and Robinson et al. (US Pat. No. 11,525,027 B2).
Examiner Information
17. 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
05/27/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights