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) 1-7 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 2 and 4-5 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-5 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “tapered flange which tapers … and extends continuously around the peripheral edge of the at least one variable power lens.” All of Applicant’s Figures are cross-sections and do not show whether or not the flange extends continuously around the peripheral edge (i.e. is annular) or not. Further, Applicant’s disclosure is silent with respect this feature. Thus, this limitation is new matter.
Claim(s) 2-7 are rejected as dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermans, et al (Hermans) (US 2009/0018652 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hermans teaches an accommodating intraocular lens (e.g. abstract), for providing accommodation to an eye (e.g. abstract), wherein the lens and the eye have the same optical axis (e.g. abstract; when implanted in the eye as a functioning lens, this limitation is inherently met), comprising
at least one variable power lens (e.g. Figures 9, #s 29A, 29B) that accommodates within the eye (e.g. abstract) and
at least one rigid lens driver (e.g. Figure 9, #22, [0159]) coupled to the variable power lens (e.g. Figure 9) which driver is arranged to be positioned in an accommodative structure of the eye (e.g. Figures 9);
wherein the rigid lens driver comprises at least one rigid tapered flange which tapers from a peripheral edge of the at least one variable power lens towards a peripheral free end of the at least one tapered flange (e.g. annotated Figure 9 below) and extends continuously around the peripheral edge of the at least one variable power lens (e.g. Figure 9), and
wherein the rigid lens driver is configured to provide translation of constrictive movement in an axial direction of the accommodative structure in the eye into movement in a lateral direction onto the variable power lens (e.g. [0158], #21 works as described for Figures 6A-B; [0155]-[0156] describe the claimed movement).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9, Hermans
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the accommodative structure of the eye is a sulcus of the eye, a wedge shaped gap between the anterior surface of a ciliary mass and the posterior surface of an iris, wherein the rigid tapered flange is arranged to be positioned at least partially in said accommodative structure (the AIOL is able to be placed in the claimed anatomical location).
Regarding Claim 3, the accommodative structure of the eye is a gap between a posterior section of a capsular bag and a remaining rim of an anterior section of the capsular bag (the device is able to be placed in the claimed anatomical location and able to be actuated in the manner claimed in claim 1 when in that location).
Regarding Claim 4, the variable power lens is a combination of at least two optical elements (e.g. Figure 9, #s 29A, 29B).
Regarding Claim 5, further comprising at least one posterior anchoring component (e.g. Figure 9, e.g. #s 40, 41) which components provides anchoring of the lens by coupling to a rim of a capsulorhexis in a capsular bag of the eye (e.g. [0174]).
Regarding Claim 6, each optical element of the at least two optical elements comprises at least one free-form optical surface (e.g. [0085], [0088], [0090], the power varies along the surface and thus is free-form; [0100] the surface is not rotationally symmetric, which is what a free-form optical surface is).
Regarding Claim 7, a combination of the at least one free-form optical surfaces of the at least two optical elements provides variable optical power (e.g. [0090], [0100]) of which a degree of power depends on a degree of mutual movement in opposite directions of the at least two optical elements in a lateral direction (e.g. [0178], [0185]).
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 3/26/2026
Prosecution Insights