This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 17894483.
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
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species I drawn to Figs. 1 and 5-11 (five compartments with a tissue housing).
Species II drawn to Figs. 12-14 (four compartments and no tissue housing).
The species are independent or distinct because Species I has five compartments including a tissue housing while Species II has four compartments and not including a tissue housing. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-4, 10, 11, 12, and 17 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics; the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) such as key terms including tissue holder/box or tissue for Species I but not for Species II; and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Eric Waltmire on October 14, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-17, 19 and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 18 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
Figure 2 and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Fvlbrook et al. (Fvlbrook) 2009/0301927. The applicant is reminded that ophthalmic instrument stand is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the ophthalmic instrument stand. Fvlbrook discloses
In regards to Claim 1, An eye patient article station for mounting to an ophthalmic instrument stand, comprising: a body comprising a plurality of compartments (38, 40, 42, 44, 46), a first compartment (38 or 40) of the plurality of compartments is configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses.
In regards to Claim 2, The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a tray (Tray), and the tray comprises an at least one of the plurality of compartments (38, 40, 42, 44, 46). .
In regards to Claim 3, The station of claim 2, wherein the tray comprises one or more interior walls defining a one or more compartments of the plurality of compartments (38, 40, 42, 44, 46).
In regards to Claim 4, The station of claim 1, wherein an at least one of the plurality of compartments is a cup holder (44, 46).
In regards to Claim 5, The station of claim 4, wherein the cup holder (44, 46) comprises a curved interior wall surrounding a bottom wall of the cup holder.
In regards to Claim 6, The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a tissue housing (42) and an at least one of the plurality of compartments is a tissue holder within the tissue housing.
In regards to Claim 9, The station of claim 6, wherein the tissue holder (tissue box) comprises a rear opening (with slot where tissue extend) for receiving tissues.
In regards to Claim 14, The station of claim 1, comprising a pole mount (32,34).
In regards to Claim 16, The station of claim 1, comprising a bracket (56) fixed to the body for connecting the body to an ophthalmic instrument stand.
In regards to Claim 17, The station of claim 1, comprising a hook (48, 50) joined to the body and extending below the body.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pole mount 34,32
Compartments (38, 40, 42, 44, and 46)
Tissue housing 42
Tissue holder
With slot
Cup holders 44,46
Hooks 48,50)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tray)]
PNG
media_image1.png
448
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schwaegerle et al. (Schwaegerle) 2016/0302877. The applicant is reminded that ophthalmic instrument stand is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the ophthalmic instrument stand.
Schwaegerle discloses
In regards to Claim 1, An eye patient article station for mounting to an ophthalmic instrument stand, comprising: a body comprising a plurality of compartments (70, 104), a first compartment (104) of the plurality of compartments is configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses.
In regards to Claim 2, The station of claim 1, wherein the body (12, 14, 30) comprises a tray (12,14,30), and the tray comprises an at least one of the plurality of compartments (70 and 104). .
In regards to Claim 3, The station of claim 2, wherein the tray (12,14, 30) comprises one or more interior walls defining a one or more compartments of the plurality of compartments (70 and 104).
In regards to Claim 4, The station of claim 1, wherein an at least one of the plurality of compartments is a cup holder (70, holding cup 20).
In regards to Claim 14, The station of claim 1, comprising a pole mount (18, 20, 44, 46).
In regards to claim 15, The station of claim 14, wherein the pole mount comprises a first arm (18), a second arm (20), and a sleeve (46), the first arm connected to the body (12, 14, 30), the second arm (20) connected to the sleeve (46), the second arm (20) releasably connected to and movable relative (via 18a, 38, 40) to the first arm (18) to adjust a relative position of the sleeve (46) to the body.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Mazer et al. (Mazer) 7,296,705. The applicant is reminded that ophthalmic instrument stand is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the ophthalmic instrument stand.
Mazer discloses:
In regards to Claim 1, An eye patient article station for mounting to an ophthalmic instrument stand (10), comprising: a body (12) comprising a plurality of compartments (14, 16, 19), a first compartment (14 or 19) of the plurality of compartments is configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses.
In regards to Claim 2, The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a tray (18/19), and the tray comprises an at least one of the plurality of compartments.
In regards to Claim 3, The station of claim 2, wherein the tray (12,14, 30) comprises one or more interior walls (wall between 14 and 16) defining a one or more compartments of the plurality of compartments.
In regards to Claim 6, The station of claim 1, wherein the body (10) comprises a tissue housing (12) and an at least one of the plurality of compartments is a tissue holder (14 or 16) within the tissue housing (12).
In regards to Claim 7, The station of claim 6, wherein the tissue holder (14 or 16) is shaped to hold a rectangular tissue box or square tissue box (see figure 2, 26 or 30).
In regards to Claim 8, The station of claim 6, wherein a side wall of the tissue housing (12) comprises an aperture (60) for dispensing a tissue.
In regards to Claim 13, The station of claim 1, wherein the body (10) comprises a tray (18/19), and the tray comprises the first compartment (top area of 18); a second compartment of the plurality of compartments is a cup holder (16 capable of holding a cup); the body comprises a tissue housing (12), a third compartment of the plurality of compartments is a tissue holder (14) within the tissue housing (12); the cup holder extends from the tray; and, a top of the tissue housing comprises the tray (18/19).
In regards to Claim 16, The station of claim 1, comprising a bracket (20) fixed to the body (10) for connecting the body to an ophthalmic instrument stand.
[AltContent: textbox (Tray (top area surface) comprise
First compartment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
276
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
334
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Brennan et al. (Brennan) 2015/0144514. The applicant is reminded that ophthalmic instrument stand is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the ophthalmic instrument stand.
Brennan discloses:
In regards to Claim 1, An eye patient article station for mounting to an ophthalmic instrument stand (112 or 12), comprising: a body (10) comprising a plurality of compartments (111, 120), a first compartment (see figure below) of the plurality of compartments is configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses.
In regards to Claim 2, The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a tray (10), and the tray comprises an at least one of the plurality of compartments (111).
In regards to claim 10 The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a pair of strap loops (106, paragraph 0062).
In regards to claim 11, The station of claim 10, comprising a strap (straps) engageable with the pair of strap loops (106) to secure the body to an ophthalmic instrument stand.
In regards to claim 12, The station of claim 10, wherein each of the pair of strap loops (see figure 1F, and paragraph 0062) are located at opposite ends of the body (10).
[AltContent: textbox (Cup holder compartment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Eyeglass compartment 111)]
PNG
media_image5.png
504
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Frank 2002/0179484. The applicant is reminded that ophthalmic instrument stand is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the ophthalmic instrument stand.
Frank discloses
In regards to Claim 1, An eye patient article station for mounting to an ophthalmic instrument stand, comprising: a body comprising a plurality of compartments (13, 15, 19), a first compartment (13) of the plurality of compartments is configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses (see figure below, compartment 13).
In regards to Claim 2, The station of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a tray (Tray), and the tray comprises an at least one of the plurality of compartments (13, 15, 19)
In regards to Claim 3, The station of claim 2, wherein the tray comprises one or more interior walls (walls of 13, 15, and 19) defining a one or more compartments of the plurality of compartments (13, 15, 19).
In regards to Claim 4, The station of claim 1, wherein an at least one of the plurality of compartments is a cup holder (15).
In regards to Claim 5, The station of claim 4, wherein the cup holder (15) comprises a curved interior wall surrounding a bottom wall of the cup holder.
PNG
media_image6.png
514
690
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaegerle et al. (herein after Schwaegerle1) 2016/0302877 in view of Schwaegerle (herein after Schwaegerle2) 5,907,387. Schwaegerle1 discloses
In regards to claim 19, the eye patient article station comprising a plurality of compartments (70 and 104), at least one of the plurality of compartments (104) configured to hold a pair of eyeglasses, a pole (16). Schwaegerle1 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention in regards to claim 19 and 20 except for the a base; a console above the base; and, comprising a pole connected to the base, a refractor, and a slit lamp; the refractor connected to the pole, slit lamp connected to the base. Schwaegerle2 teaches that it is known to have an ophthalmic instrument stand comprising a base (bottom of 14); a console (where instruments are located 14a-14c) above the base (bottom of 14); and, comprising a pole (16) connected to the base (14), a refractor (17), and a slit lamp (21); the refractor (17) connected to the pole (16), slit lamp (21) connected to the base (14 via pole 16). It would have been obvious matter of engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Schwaegerle1 to have included an ophthalmic instrument stand comprising a base; a console above the base; and, comprising a pole connected to the base, a refractor, and a slit lamp; the refractor connected to the pole, slit lamp connected to the base as taught by Schwaegerle2 since Schwaegerle1 teaches that the tray/body is attached to a pole of an Ophthalmic instrument stand which is incorporated by reference therefore allowing for quick access to equipment during ophthalmic procedures and supporting items close to the equipment during procedures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional trays including such as.
Larkin et al. 3,561,589 teaching of a tray with a tissue holder
Radcliffe 4,832,241 teaching of a tray with a plurality of compartments and cup and tissue holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631