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) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill 5,843,346 in view of Karageozian et al 2003/0175259, PCT Publication WO 99/08147, Tung 2013/0314665 (see 26, 28 in Fig. 2; paragraphs 0083, 0084 and 0097) and Havenstrite et al 2015/0234204 essentially for reasons of record noting the following.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that the lens has “a peripheral zone adjacent the aspheric alignment zone and configured to provide edge lift at a periphery of the cornea of the eye” and suggested that Tung does not show this. While it is true that paragraphs 0083 and 0084 of Tung disclose that the alignment zone does indeed rest on the periphery of the cornea, applicant is directed to the first two lines of paragraph 0097 of the reference teaching that the “peripheral zone 28 also preferably comprises an edge lift to promote tear flow”. It is submitted that the peripheral zone of Tung meets the instant peripheral zone in spite of the disclosure at paragraphs 0083 and 0084. Figure 2 of Tung shows that even if the alignment zone 26 contacts a peripheral portion of the cornea, the peripheral zone 28—which is adjacent to the alignment zone 26 and would also be located within (ie, above) the periphery of the cornea—provides the instant edge lift at a more peripheral portion of the periphery of the cornea. The edge lift would be due to the sloped inner configuration of the peripheral zone as it extends to the outermost portion of the periphery of the cornea upon which the contact lens covers. Since the aspect of the viscosity has been removed from instant claim 12, claims 12 and 14 have been rejected in this paragraph. It is submitted that newly added claims 21 and 22 concerning the aspheric zone being configured to accommodate a wider range of patients would have been an obvious aspect in Tung since one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously desire the alignment zone—and the lens containing same—to be accommodating/useful to the greatest number of patients possible.
2.Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill 5,843,346 in view of Karageozian et al 2003/0175259, PCT Publication WO 99/08147, Tung 2013/0314665 (see 26, 28 in Fig. 2; paragraphs 0083, 0084 and 0097) and Havenstrite et al 2015/0234204 and further in view of PCT Publication WO 2012/016097 essentially for reasons of record as noted in paragraph 1, supra and paragraph 2 of the previous action.
3.Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests that Tung does not teach the instant peripheral zone configured to provide an edge lift of the lens. However, upon a closer review of Tung, paragraph 0097 does indeed teach this. It is respectfully submitted that the instant claims recite no more than what is commonly known in the orthokeratology art and as such are simply not patentable over the art as applied.
4.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.
5.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