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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II and Species II in the reply filed on 01/06/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1, replace “comprising” with “including”. Legalese style language should not be presented within an abstract.
The abstract is additionally objected to for formatting reasons. Applicant is reminded that an abstract must be in a SINGLE paragraph format.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Last Line, replace “location,” with “location;”
Page 3, Line 1, replace “comprises” with “comprises:”
Page 3, Line 14, replace “comprises” with “comprises:”
Page 3, Line 18, replace “thereto,” with “thereto;”
Page 3, Line 21, replace “haptics, and” with “haptics; and”
Page 4, Line 2, replace “comprises:” with “comprises:”
Page 4, Line 4, replace “lens,” with “lens;”
Page 4, Line 9, replace “thereafter” with “thereafter;”
Page 4, Line 14, replace “comprises” with “comprises:”
Page 4, Line 21, replace “orientation, and” with “orientation; and”
Page 4, Last Line, replace “surface,” with “surface;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend upon another multiple depend claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 14 and 15 have not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,005,572 (Mizoguchi).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Mizoguchi et al. teaches: Claim 8 – apparatus (328) capable of allowing for the automated transfer of an intraocular lens comprising an optical lens body having a peripheral edge as well as two haptics attached to the peripheral edge of the optical lens body and extending outwardly from the peripheral edge of the optical lens body, the apparatus (328) comprising a gripper (346) including: pressure supply connectors (350) for the supply of vacuum or overpressure; two aspiration ports (358 or 360) arranged at a distal end of the gripper (346) and projecting distally away from the gripper (346), each of the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) at a distal end thereof comprising an aspiration opening that is surrounded by a lens attachment surface, two separate fluid channels (354), each of the two separate fluid channels (354) fluidically connecting a respective one of the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) with the pressure supply connectors (350) for the supply of vacuum or overpressure so as to form two separate fluidic connections between the pressure supply connectors (350) and the aspiration openings of the aspiration ports (358 or 360), wherein the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) are spaced from one another by a distance (d; e) measured in a plane defined by the lens attachment surfaces, for being capable of gripping the intraocular lens only at the haptics by attaching the haptics of the intraocular lens to the lens attachment surfaces of the aspiration ports (358 or 360), and for releasing the intraocular lens by detaching the haptics of the intraocular lens from the lens attachment surfaces, (Figures 1-7); Claim 9 – wherein the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) are fixedly arranged at the distal end of the gripper (346), (Figures 1-7); Claim 10 - wherein the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) are rotatably arranged at the distal end of the gripper (346), each of the two aspiration ports (358 or 360) being rotatably arranged about a respective predetermined rotational axis (i.e., the entire gripper (346) including the aspiration ports (358 or 360) are rotatable about pivot axis of bracket (338) which is rotatable as described in at least Column 9, Line 64 – Column 10, Line 2) which is normal to the plane defined by the lens attachment surfaces, (Figures 1-7).
Mizoguchi does not teach: the distance ranging from 5 mm to 17 mm (Claim 8). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distance shown in Mizoguchi, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions (ranging from 5 mm to 17 mm) to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Mizoguchi), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,573,331 (Martin et al.).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Martin et al. teaches: Claim 8 – apparatus (102) capable of allowing for the automated transfer of an intraocular lens comprising an optical lens body having a peripheral edge as well as two haptics attached to the peripheral edge of the optical lens body and extending outwardly from the peripheral edge of the optical lens body, the apparatus (102) comprising a gripper (formed by multiple carriers (104)) including: pressure supply connectors (864) for the supply of vacuum or overpressure; two aspiration ports (111) arranged at a distal end of the gripper (formed by multiple carriers (104)) and projecting distally away from the gripper (formed by multiple carriers (104)), each of the two aspiration ports (111) at a distal end thereof comprising an aspiration opening (111) that is surrounded by a lens attachment surface, two separate fluid channels (110), each of the two separate fluid channels (110) fluidically connecting a respective one of the two aspiration ports (111) with the pressure supply connectors (864) for the supply of vacuum or overpressure so as to form two separate fluidic connections between the pressure supply connectors (864) and the aspiration openings (111) of the aspiration ports (111), wherein the two aspiration ports (111) are spaced from one another by a distance (d; e) measured in a plane defined by the lens attachment surfaces, for being capable of gripping the intraocular lens only at the haptics by attaching the haptics of the intraocular lens to the lens attachment surfaces of the aspiration ports (111), and for releasing the intraocular lens by detaching the haptics of the intraocular lens from the lens attachment surfaces, (Figures 1-21); Claim 9 – wherein the two aspiration ports (111) are fixedly arranged at the distal end of the gripper (formed by multiple carriers (104)), (Figures 1-21).
Martin et al. does not teach: the distance ranging from 5 mm to 17 mm (Claim 8). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distance shown in Martin et al., and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions (ranging from 5 mm to 17 mm) to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Martin et al.), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642