Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/994,499

NOVEL REFRACTIVE EDOF INTRAOCULAR LENS FOR CONTINUOUS VISION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 28, 2022
Examiner
PATEL, AREN
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Biotech Vision Care Pvt Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
166 granted / 210 resolved
+9.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
60.1%
+20.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 210 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 and amendments, see pages 7-8 of the applicant's remarks, filed 12/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 09/03/2025 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 with respect to the U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to arguments pertaining to claim 1, it is stated that the pending invention has a discrete ring architecture and that the prior art does not teach a non-oscillatory refractive EDOF architecture. Examiner disagrees with the assessment as a discrete ring architecture and a non-oscillatory refractive EDOF architecture is not recited in claim 1 in the claimset dated 12/28/2025. With respect to claim 2 and the arguments presented in 9 of 12, examiner states that equalized refractive ring geometry, optimized zone widths, and aspheric compensation are not presented in claim 2. While equalized geometry may be in figures 1-5, it would need to be recited in the claims for the claims to possibly overcome prior art. Examiner has also incorporated the reference of Tiwari (US Pub No.: 2018/0132996) to teach new limitations in claim 1 and new claim 17. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the discrete ring architecture, equalized refractive ring geometry, zone widths, aspheric compensation, the power of the depth of field, distinct lens configurations in figures 7-8, micro-diffractive effects, angular frequencies, multifocal behavior, and other elements listed on pages 8-12 of ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan Esfandiarijahromi (US Pub No.: 2023/0258958) in view of Tiwari (US Pub No.: 2018/0132996). Regarding claim 1, Hasan Esfandiarijahromi (US Pub No.: 2023/0258958) discloses a refractive EDOF IOL comprising: a refractive edof intraocular lens (extended depth of focus in [0147] on page 11 of the specification, ophthalmic lens also in [0147]) with annular refractive zones (annular zones 404-408, with 403, 405, 407, and 409 to correct refractive error) having optimized spherical aberration (spherical aberration power profile in a vision zone in [0231]) for extended depth of focus (being the surface topography of the lens, shown in figure 6) configured to and/or capable of providing extended depth of focus (extended depth of focus disclosed in [0146]) to get continuous vision from far to near distance up to closer distances (far and near vision disclosed in [0116], where an extended depth of focus teaches a continuous vision). However, does not teach that the optimized spherical aberration is specifically for an extended depth of focus. Instead, Tiwari (US Pub No.: 2018/0132996) teaches having optimized spherical aberration for extended depth of focus (in [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimized spherical aberration in the lenses of Tiwari into the refractive zones of Esfandiarijahromi for the purpose of providing a “spherical aberration” that “can enhance a depth of focus in a conventional manner,” as per [0071], where Tiwari provides a means to extend a depth of focus that will have “more efficient use of light energy” as per [0012]. Regarding claim 2, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF- IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive EDOF-IOL or said refractive edof intraocular lens is a fourth zone 60-degree segment design (shown in figure 6, where the 4th zone will have 6 optical elements (defined as optical elements in [0158]-[0159]) in the 4th annular zone, detailed in [0158] and figure 6, as well as annotated figure 1 below. As 6 elements are present, a 60 degree separation is present between said elements) to be configured to and/or capable of providing a balanced energy distribution without compromising a depth of focus at larger pupil diameter like scotopic condition (the optical elements are defined as creating areas of positive or negative focus as per [0006]-[0007]). PNG media_image1.png 345 466 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 1 Regarding claim 3, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF- IOL according to claim 2, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches zonal modification in the IOL is used as a controllable switch to change the depth of focus according to a requirement, viz. from distant to near vision or distant to intermediate vision (in [0146], the optical portions like 265 and 266 can control a focus required on an image. The variable optical surface will also provide for far and near vision in [0116]). Regarding claim 4, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF-IOL according to claim 3, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of minimizing glares and halos by providing controlled spherical aberration at each zone (in [0057]-[0058], a control of aberrations and dispersion via the geometrically defined shapes on an optical element is disclosed). Regarding claim 5, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF-IOL according to claim 4, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of balancing nominal power or distance vision power (as the zones form a base power profile, a balancing of a power is presented in [0156]) and providing pupil independence (as one lens is only placed in one eye, the eyes of the patient will have pupil independence where the intraocular lens does not disclose anything that would change said independence). Regarding claim 6, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 5, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches refractive edof intraocular lens circuit is further configured to and/or capable of maintaining optimized energy distribution in each annular zone to a predetermined contrast irrespective of pupil size and light conditions (in [0169], as the optical elements are disclosed as being used to “focus light distribution of an ophthalmic lens” to lower an optical contrast of an image formed on a retinal image, an optimizing of a light distribution is implied to be there to lower said optical contrast to best control a myopia, as per [0169]. The distribution of energy is assumed to be light energy that passes through the lens). Regarding claim 7, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 6, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of providing the vision at functional intermediate distance and functional near distance at any pupil size irrespective of the light condition, which are missing the traditional multifocal IOLs and monofocal IOLs (providing of intermediate vision with no disclosure of influence via pupil size in [0116]. As no mention of a pupil size to control an intermediate vision is present, said lack of relation between pupil size and intermediate vision is present in Esfandiarijahromi). Regarding claim 8, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 7, with Esfandiarijahromi further comprising: lens configured to and/or capable of providing balanced light distribution and maintaining the depth of focus along with the image quality and contrast due to the introduction of concentric 60 degree segmented circular zone design (in [0169], as the optical elements are disclosed as being used to “focus light distribution of an ophthalmic lens” to lower an optical contrast of an image formed on a retinal image, an optimizing of a light distribution is implied to be there to lower said optical contrast to best control a myopia, as per [0169]). Regarding claim 9, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 8, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches the EDOF- IOL anterior surface peripheral zone is given negative curvature (a negative curvature is disclosed in [0129] with a change to a negative curvature shown in graph figure 1D. said negative curvature about the anterior surface peripheral zone showed in figure 14) by said refractive edof intraocular lens in order to reduce the central thickness (also in figure 14) whereby reduced central thickness is useful during unfold of the lens after passing through the small incision during implantation (a lower thickness toward the center of the lens is depicted in figure 14. Examiner notes that a folding of an intraocular lens is not in Esfandiarijahromi, but said folding of a lens is also not claimed here). Regarding claim 10, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF- IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches zonal modification in the IOL is used as a controllable switch to change the depth of focus according to a requirement, viz. from distant to near vision or distant to intermediate vision (in [0146], the optical portions like 265 and 266 can control a focus required on an image. The variable optical surface will also provide for far and near vision in [0116]). Regarding claim 11, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF-IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of minimizing glares and halos by providing controlled spherical aberration at each zone (in [0057]-[0058], a control of aberrations and dispersion via the geometrically defined shapes on an optical element is disclosed). Regarding claim 12, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF-IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches refractive edof intraocular lens circuit is further configured to and/or capable of balancing nominal power or distance vision power (as the zones form a base power profile, a balancing of a power is presented in [0156]) and providing pupil independence (as one lens is only placed in one eye, the eyes of the patient will have pupil independence where the intraocular lens does not disclose anything that would change said independence). Regarding claim 13, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of maintaining optimized energy distribution in each annular zone to a predetermined contrast irrespective of pupil size and light conditions (in [0169], as the optical elements are disclosed as being used to “focus light distribution of an ophthalmic lens” to lower an optical contrast of an image formed on a retinal image, an optimizing of a light distribution is implied to be there to lower said optical contrast to best control a myopia, as per [0169]. The distribution of energy is assumed to be light energy that passes through the lens). Regarding claim 14, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches said refractive edof intraocular lens is further configured to and/or capable of providing the vision at functional intermediate distance and functional near distance at any pupil size irrespective of the light condition, which are missing the traditional multifocal IOLs and monofocal IOLs (providing of intermediate vision with no dicsclosure of influence via pupil size in [0116]. As no mention of a pupil size to control an intermediate vision is present, said lack of relation between pupil size and intermediate vision is present in Esfandiarijahromi). Regarding claim 15, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 1, with Esfandiarijahromi further comprising: lens configured to and/or capable of providing balanced light distribution and maintaining the depth of focus along with the image quality and contrast due to the introduction of concentric 60 degree segmented circular zone design (in [0169], as the optical elements are disclosed as being used to “focus light distribution of an ophthalmic lens” to lower an optical contrast of an image formed on a retinal image, an optimizing of a light distribution is implied to be there to lower said optical contrast to best control a myopia, as per [0169]). Regarding claim 16, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL according to claim 1, wherein Esfandiarijahromi teaches EDOF- IOL anterior surface peripheral zone is given negative curvature (negative curvature shown in figure [0129], where the negative curvature will create the geometry shown in figures 14 and 15 of Esfandiarijahromi) by said refractive edof intraocular lens in order to reduce the central thickness (shown in figure 14) whereby reduced central thickness is useful during unfold of the lens after passing through the small incision during implantation (a lower thickness toward the center of the lens is depicted in figure 14. Examiner notes that a folding of an intraocular lens is not in Esfandiarijahromi, but said folding of a lens is also not claimed here). Regarding claim 17, Esfandiarijahromi in view of Tiwari teach the refractive EDOF IOL, according to claim 1. However, Esfandiarijahromi does not further comprise controlled spherical aberration across the annular zones and provide a depth of focus between about 1.0 diopter and about 3.5 diopters at 50 lines/mm, as measured by modulation transfer function (MTF) analysis at a 3 mm aperture. Tiwari (US Pub No.: 2018/0132996) further comprises controlled spherical aberration across the annular zones and provide a depth of focus between about 1.0 diopter and about 3.5 diopters (in [0009] and [0075] of Tiwari) at 50 lines/mm (in [0070]), as measured by modulation transfer function (MTF) analysis (MTF in [0064]-[0066]) at a 3 mm aperture (MTF with 3mm pupil aperture in [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optimized spherical aberration in the lenses of Tiwari into the refractive zones of Esfandiarijahromi for the purpose of providing a “spherical aberration” that “can enhance a depth of focus in a conventional manner,” as per [0071], where Tiwari provides a means to extend a depth of focus that will have “more efficient use of light energy” as per [0012]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smyth (US Patent No.: 11,209,649) does teach a corrective ophthalmic lens (column 7 lines 1-12) with a peripheral zone given a negative curvature (column 11 lines 46-67 to column 12 lines 1-4). Zhao (US Pub No.: 2009/0213326) considered for an intraocular lens with multiple zones in figures 12-14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th. 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 C. 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. /AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774 /YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 28, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582516
MULTIFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12551330
MULTIPLANAR TENDON REALIGNMENT IMPLANTS AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12521225
Mixed-Frame Intraluminal Prosthesis And Methods Thereof
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12521542
Connectors and Cables for Use With Ventricle Assist Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12514713
BONE REPOSITIONING GUIDE SYSTEM AND PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 210 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month