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 .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/17/2025 and entered with the 11/5/2025 RCE, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejections of 21-40 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art and claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner notes the change in prior art was necessitated by the Applicants amendments.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended claim language. The Examiner notes this language is taught in Aharoni and Woods, but under a different embodiment of Woods. This rejection is detailed below in the prior art rejection section.
No additional arguments with respect to the prior art were presented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-28 and 31-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharoni, et al (Aharoni) (US 2014/0371852 A1) in view of Woods (US 2007/0032868 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Aharoni teaches a device (e.g. Figures 1-2) configured for insertion into an eye (e.g. abstract, Figure 2), the device comprising:
a base (e.g. Figure 1) including:
an anterior portion (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below) having an anterior rim (edge of the anterior portion that forms the axial opening) and an anterior opening (e.g. Figure 3),
a posterior portion (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below) having a posterior rim (edge of the posterior portion that forms the axial opening) and a posterior opening (e.g. Figure 3), and
an intermediate portion between the anterior and the posterior portions (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the intermediate portion is wider than the anterior and the posterior portions and protrudes from the anterior and the posterior portions (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the intermediate portion has an exterior that includes an anterior facing surface extending radially outward from the anterior portion (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below) and a posterior facing surface extending radially outward from the posterior portion (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below), and wherein the intermediate portion has a recess therein (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below),
wherein the recess is formed by an anterior ledge, a posterior ledge, and a sidewall extending in an anterior-posterior direction (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below), and wherein the recess extends continuously around a circumference of the base (e.g. annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the second rim extends as a one piece continuous structure away from the intermediate portion to a proximalmost end of the second rim (e.g. Figure 1), and wherein in a peripheral face of the second rim extends continuously around the posterior opening (e.g. Figures 1, 3).
Aharoni discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the anterior rim includes a plurality of notches.
Woods teaches a base member with anterior and posterior portions, where the anterior rim has a plurality of notches (e.g. Figures 5-6. 8-9, gaps #s 104).
Woods and Aharoni are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely base structures for holding IOLs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aharoni such that the base structure has a plurality of notches as taught by Woods in order to allow for movement of fluid into/out of the chamber (e.g. Woods, [0032]), which allows the capsular bag to retain and maintain its natural shape (e.g. Woods, [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3, Aharoni
Regarding Claim 22, the anterior portion comprises:
an anterior wall (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3); and
an anterior chamber posterior to the anterior rim and the anterior opening and radially surrounded by the anterior wall (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3); wherein a width of the anterior chamber is greater than a diameter of the anterior opening (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 23, the posterior portion further comprises:
a posterior wall (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3);
a posterior opening at a posterior end of the posterior wall (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3); and
a posterior chamber anterior to the posterior opening (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3), wherein a width of the posterior chamber is greater than a diameter of the posterior opening (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3), and wherein the recess is spaced apart from the posterior opening by the posterior chamber (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 24, each of the anterior portion, the posterior portion, and the intermediate portions is annular (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 25, the recess is annular (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 26, the recess is wider than the anterior portion and the posterior portion (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 27, there is a lens configured for receipt in the recess (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 6, [0039], IOL #70).
Regarding Claim 28, there is a pair of haptics extending radially outward from the intermediate portion (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 1, #s 12).
Regarding Claim 31, in addition to the limitations of claim 31 discussed supra for claims 21-22, where first is anterior and second is posterior supra, Aharoni teaches the recess adjacent to the first chamber (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 32, the first wall is angled radially inward (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3, the first wall extends radially inward from the intermediate portion and along the first wall), wherein a diameter of the first wall increases as the first opening approaches the intermediate portion (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 33, the limitations of claim 33 are discussed supra for claim 23.
Regarding Claim 34, a radial wall thickness of the intermediate portion is less than an axial height of the base (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 35, the limitations of claim 33 are discussed supra for claim 23.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Aharoni and Woods discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach a width of the first wall increases as the first wall approaches the intermediate housing portion.
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 combination of Aharoni and Woods such that the width of the first wall increases as the first wall approaches the intermediate housing portion as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV). Here, the axially central increased thickness allows for more support for the IOL held at that axial position.
Regarding Claim 37, the limitations of claim 37 are discussed supra for claim 27.
Regarding Claim 38, in addition to the limitations of claim 38 discussed supra for claims 21-23, 27, where housing portion here is the portion supra, Aharoni teaches a passage extending through the anterior housing, the posterior housing, and the intermediate housing portions (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 3), and
the lens able to be received within the recess including: a central optic (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 6, [0039]); and a pair of tabs protruding radially outwardly from the central optic (haptics discussed supra for claim 28), wherein the tabs are configured to engage one or more surfaces of the intermediate housing portion (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 39, the pair of tabs includes a first fixed tab and a second actuatable tab (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 1, [0032], the material of the haptics are flexible and therefore actuatable).
Regarding Claim 40, the tabs protrude from diametrically opposite locations of the central optic (e.g. Aharoni, Figure 1).
Claims 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharoni, et al (Aharoni) (US 2014/0371852 A1) in view of Woods (US 2007/0032868 A1) as discussed supra and further in view of Brady, et al (Brady) (US 6,797,004 B1).
Regarding Claims 29-30, the combination of Aharoni and Woods discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach an outer diameter of the intermediate portion is about 8.5 mm and an inner diameter of the intermediate portion is about 7 mm.
Brady teaches a capsular bag filling base support for an IOL having an outer diameter of 8 mm to 11 mm and the IOL within the base has a diameter of 3.5 mm to 7 mm (indicating the inner diameter of the base ring).
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 combination of Aharoni and Woods such that the intermediate portion has an outer diameter of about 8.5 mm and an inner diameter of about 7 mm as it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
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 LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571)272-4746. 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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 1/23/2026