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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues (Remarks, page 10) the cited art lacks a base being sized and configured to engage a tab of a lens, and having an inside diameter less than the outer diameter of the lens such that the base is configured to engage the actuatable tab upon release of a lateral force compressing the actuatable tab.
Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to a base structure intended for use with a lens having an actuatable tab which is not positively claimed. Applicant has not shown how the structure of the prior art is incapable of use with a lens having a larger outer diameter and actuatable tab, compressible by a lateral force. The additional limitations to the structure of a hypothetical lens for use with the base does not further structurally limit the base device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21,26-30,36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langerman USPN 5628795 in view of Ben Nun USPUB 20050090896 and Joshua USPUB 20080300680.
Regarding claim 21 Langerman disclose a device for insertion in the eye comprising a base having anterior and posterior rims having first and second openings, recessed groove defined by a posterior ledge of the anterior rim and anterior ledge of the posterior rim and radially inward facing wall of the base, and a passage extending from the first to second opening. Figure 4-12,25. Regarding the anterior ledge of the groove being configured to engage a tab of a lens to be received in the recessed recess, the Langerman device could be used with a hypothetical lens having a tab and outside diameter shaped to engage the structure disclosed in Langerman..
Regarding claim 26-29, the rims may extend continuously (Figures 1-17) or discontinuously (Figures 18-27).
Regarding claim 30 Langerman disclose a device for insertion in the eye comprising a base having haptics 27, center through hole having an inside perimeter, annular recess inside the perimeter, anterior and posterior rims, a passage extending in anterior to posterior direction, the annular recess defined by anterior facing posterior wall, radially inward facing lateral wall and a posterior facing anterior wall. Figure 4-12,25. Regarding the anterior-facing posterior wall of the recess being configured to engage a tab of a lens to be received in the recessed recess, the Langerman device could be used with a hypothetical lens having a tab and outside diameter shaped to engage the structure disclosed in Langerman.
Regarding claim 36 the posterior rim may be continuous or discontinuous. Figures 18-27.
Regarding claim 37 Langerman disclose a device for insertion in the eye comprising a base having anterior and posterior rims having first and second openings, recessed groove defined by a posterior ledge of the anterior rim and anterior ledge of the posterior rim and radially inward facing wall of the base, and a passage extending from the first to second opening. Figure 4-12,25. And wherein the recessed groove includes one or more keyed portions as shown in Figures 12-14,18-21,23,25,26. Regarding the keyed portion of the groove being configured to engage a tab of a lens to be received in the recessed recess, the Langerman device could be used with a hypothetical lens having a tab and outside diameter shaped to engage the structure disclosed in Langerman..
Regarding claims 38-39, the recessed groove may include diametrically opposed keyed portions as shown in Figures 12-14,18-21,23,26.
Regarding claim 40, Figures 25-26 show keyed portions extending between the ledges.
Regarding each of independent claims 21,30, and 37 Langerman discloses a pair of haptics 27 extending from the base (Figures 9,10,28,29) for penetrating the sulcus of the sclera to anchor the device, but is silent as to the haptic width increasing as the haptics approach the base. Ben Nun and Joshua each teach haptics for anchoring in ciliary sulcus of sclera wherein the haptics increase in width as they approach the base from which they radially extend (see Ben Nun Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0005-18; see Joshua Figures 3,14,16 and paragraph 0046). 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 haptic anchors in Langerman to include widening haptic portions as the haptics approach the base to provide stability for the haptics to anchor the device using well known techniques in the art as taught in Ben Nun and Joshua.
Claim(s) 22-24 and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langerman in view of Ben Nun USPUB 20050090896 and Joshua USPUB 20080300680.
Langerman, as modified by Ben Nun and Joshua above, meets the limitations of claims 22-24 and 31-34 but is silent as to the dimensions of the diameters of the anterior rim, posterior rim, annular recess and base as claimed. Langerman shows the anterior rim being larger than the posterior rim (Fig 10,13,15A-B, 31). Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the Langerman device, as modified by Ben Nun and Joshua, with diameters as claimed in order to fit a particular patient’s anatomy, such as a small human, and to provide the suitable rim width to hold an implant therein.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 WILLIAM H MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-4753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at 408-918-7557. 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.
/WILLIAM H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774