DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Simonov ‘728 does not disclose an accommodating intraocular lens comprising at least two optical elements, each of which comprise a “second free-form optical surface ... providing a variable increase or decrease in optical power of at least one additional aberration other than defocus which depends on a second rate or second degree of the mutual translation of the at least two optical elements in the first direction,” as recited in amended claim 1 and instead merely discloses that the optical surfaces provide correction for conditions such as defous and astigmatism but is silent regarding rate or degree of translation of the optical elements. As discussed in the previous office action, Simonov ‘728 specifically teaches the claimed second free-form optical surfaces 10 and/or 15 (figs 2-3) and discloses translation as shown by arrows 9 in fig. 2. While Simonov ‘728 may not specifically use the terms “rate” and “degree” and “mutual translation”, it is clear that the optical elements of Simonov ‘728 function in the same way as the claimed invention. For example, see Simonov ‘728 fig. 2 which shows mutual translation of the two optical elements. The mutual translation shown in fig.2 of Simonov ‘728 inherently has a rate and degree of mutual translation since translation must occur at some rate and the degree of offset from alignment is considered a degree of mutual translation. Simonov ‘728 discloses in at least pars. 11, 12, 14, and 39 that the variable increase/decrease in optical power depends on “the degree of shift”, with shift meaning lateral movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis. Therefore, it is clear that the first and second free-form surfaces provide variable increase or decrease in optical power of at least defocus and at least one additional aberration other than defocus depending on a rate or degree of mutual translation since a rate and degree of mutual translation are the same as the “degree of shift” disclosed by Simonov ‘728. Further, Simonov ‘728 discloses the same first free-form optical surfaces 7 and second free-form optical surfaces 10, 15 as the surfaces claimed in claim 1 and discloses the optical elements translate with respect to each other (fig.2). Therefore, since the structure of the surfaces of Simonov ‘728 is the same as the claimed structure, the surfaces are capable of functioning as claimed.
Applicant argues Simonov ‘728 does not disclose or suggest that the second free-form optical surface provides “variable change in the optical power to provide variable extension of the depth of field” as required by claims 4-6. Applicant states Simonov ‘714 was relied upon to teach this feature but argues that a person skilled in the art intending to provide additional functionality to provide variable extension of depth of field of an accommodating intraocular lens would not consider Simonov ‘714 since Simonov ‘714 does not disclose two elements and haptics that allow for mutual translation. This is not persuasive because Simonov ’714 specifically states “Alternatively, such lenses can incorporate at least two optical elements” on page 2, lines 1-2 and even lists EP2765952 (the EPO publication of Simonov ‘728) on page 2, line 16 as an example of a lens having two optical elements relevant to their invention. Simonov ‘714 specifically states “a preferred embodiment provides a lens of the kind referred to above, wherein its optical power is variable by relative movement of the optical elements” on page 2, lines 20-24. Therefore, it is clear that Simonov ‘714, like Simonov ‘728 and the instant application, is directed to a lens having two optical elements that translate relative to each other to provide variable properties. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Simonov ‘714.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simonov ‘728, on page 6 applicant argues Simonov ‘728 does not disclose or suggest that free-form optical surfaces adapted to provide a variable increase or decrease in defocus optical power are positioned to face one another. This is not persuasive because figs. 1-3 of Simonov ‘728 clearly show a first free-form optical surface 7 on each optical element 5, 6 facing each other as well as a second free-form optical surface 10, 15 on each optical element 5, 6 facing each other. See the annotated fig. 1 below for further illustration of at least the facing first free-form optical surfaces 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues Simonov ‘728 does not disclose that a second free-form surface is added to and positioned over the first free-form optical surface. This is not persuasive because Simonov ‘728 specifically shows second free-form optical surface 10 on the first free-form optical surfaces in fig.2 and discusses such a feature in par.5. Par.5 of Simonov ‘728 discloses “the free-form surfaces, 7, should include additional optical surfaces, 10, providing variable correction of at least one variable aberration generated by the shift of said fixed focus lens”. Therefore, it is clear that Simonov ‘728 discloses a second free-form optical surface 10 over each first free-form optical surface 7 of each optical element 5, 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 and 21 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one optical element" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simonov et al. US 2015/0342728 (hereafter referred to as Simonov ‘728).
Regarding claim 1, Simonov ‘728 discloses an accommodating intraocular lens 4, having an optical axis 3 (fig.1), with the lens comprising at least two optical elements, 5 and 6, and haptics to allow mutual translation of said at least two optical elements in one or more directions that are substantially perpendicular to the optical axis (pars.11 and 39 disclose haptics and fig.2 shows mutual translation perpendicular to the optical axis), wherein each of the at least two optical elements comprises at least one free-form optical surface 7 positioned to face one another (see annotated fig.1 above and figs. 1-3 of the application which clearly show surfaces 7 facing each other) adapted to provide variable increase or decrease in defocus optical power which depends on a first rate or first degree of the mutual translation of the elements in a first direction (fig.2) to correct for defocus aberrations of an eye (at least par.19 discloses variable defocus; pars. 11, 12, 14, and 39 disclose the variation depends on “the degree of shift” with shift meaning lateral movement in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, therefore the variation depends on a rate/degree/amount of mutual translation/degree of shift), and wherein each of the at least two optical elements comprises at least one second free-form optical surface, 10 and/or 15, added to each optical element over the at least one first free-form optical surface (figs. 2-3; pars. 5-6) providing a variable increase or decrease in optical power of at least one additional aberration other than defocus which depends on a second rate or second degree of the mutual translation of the at least two optical elements in the first direction (fig.2; at least pars.27, 28, and 34 disclose variable defocus optical power in combination with variable optical power of additional aberration(s); pars. 11, 12, 14, and 39 disclose the variation depends on “the degree of shift” which is considered a second rate/degree of mutual translation; note that the first and second rate/degree can be the same as each other).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see par.5 which discloses the mutual translation of the optical elements is capable of providing an increase or decrease in optical power depending on the second rate/degree of mutual translation of the at least two optical elements in the first direction.
Regarding claim 7, see par.38 for the lens being capable of providing variable astigmatism variable optical power.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, see pars.20, 22-26, and 28 for Zernike modes as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, see par.27 for aspherical surfaces which provide variable aspherical variable optical power.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonov ‘728 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Simonov et al. WO 2016/076714 (hereafter referred to as Simonov ‘714).
Regarding claims 4-6, pars. 19, 27, and 34 of Simonov ‘728 disclose a surface for correcting spherical aberrations and according to applicant’s specification this can have an effect on depth of field (application specification par.4). However, Simonov ’728 does not specifically state that the second free-form optical surface is adapted to provide variable change in the optical power to provide variable extension of depth of field of the lens.
Simonov ‘714 teaches an accommodating intraocular lens, in the same field of endeavor, wherein by movement of the optical elements (pg. 2, lines 1-2 discloses at least two optical elements), the lens can provide variable extension of depth of field in combination with variable focus and variable spherical aberration (pg.2, lines 12-13) for the purpose of optimizing the depth of field for human vision ideally from far to near to reading distances (pg.2, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accommodating lens of Simonov ‘728, if necessary, to be adapted to provide variable change in the optical power to provide variable extension of the depth of field of the lens as taught by Simonov ‘714 in order to optimize the depth of field for human vision ideally from far to near to reading distances. Since Simonov ‘714 teaches variable depth of field, the lens is capable of both increasing and decreasing the depth of field depending on the mutual translation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN Y WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3071. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached on (571)272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN Y WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774