-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 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 9, and 16 to recite “the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer,” and claim 16 to recite “the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer are sealed in a peripheral non-optic portion of a lens body of the IOL.” In response to Applicant’s amendment Examiner has added references Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Kelman (US Patent No.: 4,828,558).
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123).
Regarding claim 1, Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) discloses a multi-layer intraocular lens (shown in figure 1), comprising: a lens body (being entire part 10 in figure 1), comprising: an anterior diffractive optics layer (figure 1 part M1), comprising a first biocompatible material (being the hydrogel materials disclosed in [0027], where it stands to reason that said hydrogels are biocompatible as the device is disclosed as being an intraocular lens in [0027]), the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer; and a posterior diffractive optics layer (M2 in figure 1), comprising a second biocompatible material that is different from the first biocompatible material (as per [0035]-[0036], the materials for M2 are different than the materials disclosed for M1 in [0027]) the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer, wherein the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer are sealed in a peripheral non-optic portion of the lens body with a gap between the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer (detailed in [0043] wherein a molding along surface part 18, shown in figures 1-2, is present. Said mold comprises the gap between M1 and M2, while also acting as the means to seal the connection between M1 and M2).
However, Carson does not teach the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer.
Instead, Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) teaches the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer (being the first surface with a plurality of echelettes in [0014]) and the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer (a second surface with echelettes on said surface in claim 7).
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 echelette details of Weeber onto Carson in order to provide structures that can determine a diffractive power onto a lens (as per [0009]) with the structure of the echelettes in [0014]-[0015] allowing for there to be no repeated r-squared space provided by the disclosed echelettes. From here, one of ordinary skill in the art can implement the echelettes of the first and second surface onto the anterior and posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer as the first and second surfaces of Weeber are “each disposed about an optical axis and extending radially outward from the optical axis to an outer periphery of the optic” as per [0014] of Weeber, where the posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer would match the definition of the first and second surface of Weeber.
Regarding claim 7, Carson and Weeber teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1, wherein Carson discloses the gap has a thickness of between 1 µm and 1000 µm (disclosed in [0046], wherein the peripheral edge extends across the lower end of part M1 in figure 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Higgs (US Pub No.: 2012/0053313).
Regarding claim 2, Carson and Weeber teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1. However, Carson does not teach wherein the first biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15%, the second biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% and the difference between the swelling factors of the first and the second biocompatible materials is less than 5%.
Instead, Higgs (US Pub No.: 2012/0053313) teaches wherein the first biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% (swell factor of 1.0118 in [0213], being a 1.18% swelling with the material details disclosed in [0207]), the second biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% (swelling factor of 1.0235, being a 2.35% swelling with the material details of [0215]) and the difference between the swelling factors of the first and the second biocompatible materials is less than 5% (less than 5% difference observed between [0213] and [0217]).
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 swell factors of Higgs (disclosed for an IOL in [0214]) into the lenses of Carson for the purpose of providing alternative swell factor and material details into the lens system of Carson where the swell factor of Higgs is used to control a pre-swelling to reduce damage caused to a polymer used in an intraocular lens due to swelling, as per [0074].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744).
Regarding claim 3, Carson and Weeber teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1. Carson does not teach wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60, and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60.
Instead, Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744) teaches wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60 (in [0099]), and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60 (in [0099]).
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 Abbe number details of the lenses of Goldshleger into Carson for the purpose of providing an Abbe number not defined in Carson into the lenses of Carson, where defining the Abbe number is the measure of a material’s dispersion. As the Abbe numbers in [0099] of Goldshleger are defined for corneal and lens tissue, the Abbe numbers of Goldshleger will be applicable to the device of Carson.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744) in further view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2014/0168602).
Regarding claim 5, Carson in view of Weeber and Goldshleger teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1. However, Carson does not teach wherein a step height of the first set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm, and a step height of the second set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm.
Instead, Weeber (US Pub No.: 2014/0168602) does teach wherein a step height of the first set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm (in [0021]), and a step height of the second set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm (range in [0021]).
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 echelette height details of Weeber into Carson for the purpose of providing details not disclosed in the echelettes of Carson that can lead to a diffractive power add as per the arrangement of the echelettes as disclosed in [0024].
Regarding claim 6, Carson in view of Weeber and Goldshleger teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1. However, Carson does not teach wherein a radial spacing of the first set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm, and a radial spacing of the second set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm.
Instead, Weeber teaches wherein a radial spacing of the first set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm (being the echelette diameter details in [0024]), and a radial spacing of the second set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm (being the echelette diameter details in [0024]). 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 echelette height details of Weeber into Carson for the purpose of providing details not disclosed in the echelettes of Carson that can lead to a diffractive power add as per the arrangement of the echelettes as disclosed in [0024].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Rosen (US Patent No.: 10,016,270).
Regarding claim 8, Carson and Weeber teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 1. However, Carson does not further comprising: a haptic portion that is coupled to the lens body, the haptic portion comprising a third biocompatible material.
Instead, Rosen (US Patent No.: 10,016,270) teaches a haptic portion that is coupled to the lens body (parts 505 and 507), the haptic portion comprising a third biocompatible material (materials such as acrylic, silicone, PMMA and others disclosed in column 16 lines 36-60, where said materials differ than the materials disclosed in the lens of Carson).
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 haptics of Rosen into Carson for the purpose of providing a means to hold the lens of Carson in place where the haptics are also disclosed as being biocompatible in column 16 lines 36-60.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Attia (US Pub No.: 2022/0031447).
Regarding claim 9, Carson discloses a multi-layer intraocular lens (shown in figure 1), comprising: a lens body (part 10 in figure 1), comprising: an anterior diffractive optics layer (figure 1 part M1); and a posterior diffractive optics layer (M2 in figure 1), bonded to the anterior diffractive optics layer in a peripheral non-optic portion of the lens body (detailed in [0043] wherein a molding along surface part 18, shown in figures 1-2, is present. Said mold comprises the gap between M1 and M2, while also acting as the means to seal the connection between M1 and M2).
However, Carson does not teach wherein the lens body has diffractive efficiency of between 80% and 100% for the visible light spectrum.
Instead, Attia (US Pub No.: 2022/0031447) does teach wherein the lens body has diffractive efficiency of between 80% and 100% for the visible light spectrum (in [0041] and [0056]).
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 efficiency details disclosed in Attia into Carson as Carson does not teach specific efficiency details where the high efficiency details will minimize the loss of light passing through the lens as per [0049] of Attia.
Carson does not teach the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer.
Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) teaches the anterior diffractive optics layer including a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer (being the first surface with a plurality of echelettes in [0014]) and A gap between the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer (as a first surface faces the second surface in [0017] a gap between the surfaces is implied), the posterior diffractive optics layer including a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer (a second surface with echelettes on said surface in claim 7).
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 echelette details of Weeber onto Carson in order to provide structures that can determine a diffractive power onto a lens (as per [0009]) with the structure of the echelettes in [0014]-[0015] allowing for there to be no repeated r-squared space provided by the disclosed echelettes. From here, one of ordinary skill in the art can implement the echelettes of the first and second surface onto the anterior and posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer as the first and second surfaces of Weeber are “each disposed about an optical axis and extending radially outward from the optical axis to an outer periphery of the optic” as per [0014] of Weeber, where the posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer would match the definition of the first and second surface of Weeber.
Regarding claim 10, Carson in view of Weeber and Attia teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 9, wherein Carson discloses the anterior diffractive optics layer comprises a first biocompatible material (in [0027]); and the posterior diffractive optics layer comprises a second biocompatible material that is different from the first biocompatible material (as per [0035]-[0036], the materials for M2 are different than the materials disclosed for M1 in [0027]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Attia (US Pub No.: 2022/0031447) in further view of Higgs (US Pub No.: 2012/0053313).
Regarding claim 11, Carson in view of Weeber and Attia teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 10. However, Carson does not teach wherein the first biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15%, the second biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% and the difference between the swelling factors of the first and the second biocompatible materials is less than 5%.
Instead, Higgs (US Pub No.: 2012/0053313) teaches wherein the first biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% (swell factor of 1.0118 in [0213], being a 1.18% swelling with the material details disclosed in [0207]), the second biocompatible material has a swelling factor of between 0 and 15% (swelling factor of 1.0235, being a 2.35% swelling with the material details of [0215]) and the difference between the swelling factors of the first and the second biocompatible materials is less than 5% (less than 5% difference observed between [0213] and [0217]).
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 swell factors of Higgs (disclosed for an IOL in [0214]) into the lenses of Carson for the purpose of providing alternative swell factor and material details into the lens system of Carson where the swell factor of Higgs is used to control a pre-swelling to reduce damage caused to a polymer used in an intraocular lens due to swelling, as per [0074].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Attia (US Pub No.: 2022/0031447) in further view of Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744).
Regarding claim 12, Carson in view of Weeber and Attia teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 10. However, Carson does not teach wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60, and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60.
Instead, Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744) teaches wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60 (in [0099]), and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 5 and 60 (in [0099]).
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 Abbe number details of the lenses of Goldshleger into Carson for the purpose of providing an Abbe number not defined in Carson into the lenses of Carson, where defining the Abbe number is the measure of a material’s dispersion. As the Abbe numbers in [0099] of Goldshleger are defined for corneal and lens tissue, the Abbe numbers of Goldshleger will be applicable to the device of Carson.
Regarding claim 13, Carson in view of Weeber , Attia and Goldshleger teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 12, wherein Carson discloses the anterior diffractive optics layer includes a first set of annular echelettes on a posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer (shown in figures 1-2 at the bottommost end of part M1), and the posterior diffractive optics layer includes a second set of annular echelettes on an anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optics layer (shown in figures 1-2 on the top end of surface M2).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) and Attia (US Pub No.: 2022/0031447) and Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744) in further view of Weeber (US Pub No.: 2014/0168602).
Regarding claim 14, Carson in view of Weeber, Attia and Goldshleger teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 12. However, Carson does not teach wherein a step height of the first set of annular echelettes is between 1 pm and 300 pm, and a step height of the second set of annular echelettes is between 1 pm and 300 pm.
Instead, Weeber (US Pub No.: 2014/0168602) does teach wherein a step height of the first set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm (in [0021]), and a step height of the second set of annular echelettes is between 1 µm and 300 µm (range in [0021]).
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 echelette height details of Weeber into Carson for the purpose of providing details not disclosed in the echelettes of Carson that can lead to a diffractive power add as per the arrangement of the echelettes as disclosed in [0024].
Regarding claim 15, Carson in view of Weeber, Attia and Goldshleger teach the multi-layer IOL of claim 12. However, Carson does not teach wherein a radial spacing of the first set of annular echelettes is between 10 pm and 2000 pm, and a radial spacing of the second set of annular echelettes is between 10 pm and 2000 pm.
Instead, Weeber teaches wherein a radial spacing of the first set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm (being the echelette diameter details in [0024]), and a radial spacing of the second set of annular echelettes is between 10 µm and 2000 µm (being the echelette diameter details in [0024]).
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 echelette height details of Weeber into Carson for the purpose of providing details not disclosed in the echelettes of Carson that can lead to a diffractive power add as per the arrangement of the echelettes as disclosed in [0024].
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) in view of Kelman (US Patent No.: 4,828,558) and Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612).
Regarding claim 16, Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) discloses a method for configuring a multi-layer intraocular lens (in [0083]), comprising: computing a radial spacing and a step height of a first set of annular echelettes on a diffractive optics layer of an IOL and a radial spacing and a step height of a second set of annular echelettes on diffractive optics layer of the IOL based on input parameters (use of a computer program to generate elements of a lens in [0078], where the lens parameters include echelette details in [0079], where radial spacing and height echelette details are disclosed in [0043]); and forming the IOL or causing the IOL to be formed based on the computed radial spacing and the computed step height of the first set of annular echelettes and the computed radial spacing and the computed step height of the second set of annular echelettes (manufacturing of a lens in [0018]-[0019] and [0080] based off of the computing of echelette related information in [0078]-[0079]), comprising: forming the first set of annular echelettes on the posterior surface of the anterior diffractive optics layer (being the first surface with a plurality of echelettes in [0014]) and the second set of annular echelettes on the anterior surface of the posterior diffractive optical layer (a second surface with echelettes on said surface in claim 7), with a gap between the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer (as a first surface faces the second surface in [0017] a gap between the surfaces is implied), wherein the input parameters comprise a first refractive index of a first biocompatible material associated with the anterior diffractive optics layer and a second refractive index of a second biocompatible material associated with the posterior diffractive optics layer (use of a refractive parameter of a surface in [0077] to control a modeling of a lens. Generating of a refractive base in [0080]).
However, Weeber does not teach details with respect to an anterior diffractive optics layer or a posterior diffractive optics layer.
Instead, Carson does teach an anterior diffractive optics layer (figure 1 part M1) or a posterior diffractive optics layer (M2 in figure 1). 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 lens arrangement of Carson into Weeber for the purpose of providing a lens made of two different materials (as per the abstract) that allows for a plurality of refractive indexes being provided by the lens (as per [0015]) that does not rely on shape changes of the cornea to correct refractive errors as per [0018].
Weeber also does not teach wherein the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer are sealed in a peripheral non-optic portion of a lens body of the IOL.
Instead, Kelman (US Patent No.: 4,828,558) teaches wherein the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer are sealed in a peripheral non-optic portion of a lens body of the IOL (being the seal 12 disclosed in column 4 lines 31-43 with details in the abstract and column 5 lines 65-68 to column 6 lines 1-5). 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 seal of Kelman into Weeber for the purpose of providing a laminate to cover the optical portions (as per column 4 lines 41-43) where the laminate optic will protect the lenses of the device as per column5 lines 65-68 to column 6 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Weeber in view of Carson teach the method of claim 16, wherein Carson teaches that the forming of the IOL or the causing of the IOL to be formed comprises: prior to the forming, bonding the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer in a peripheral non-optic portion of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer.
Regarding claim 18, Weeber in view of Carson teach the method of claim 16, wherein Carson teaches the forming of the IOL or the causing of the IOL to be formed comprises: subsequent to the forming, bonding the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer in a peripheral non-optic portion of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer (detailed in [0043] wherein a molding along surface part 18, shown in figures 1-2, is present. Said mold comprises the gap between M1 and M2, while also acting as the means to seal the connection between M1 and M2).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) in view of Kelman (US Patent No.: 4,828,558) and Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in further view of Rosen (US Patent No.: 10,016,270).
Regarding claim 19, Weeber in view of Carson teach the method of claim 16. However, said combination did not teach a further comprising: attaching a haptic portion to the peripheral non-optic portion of the anterior diffractive optics layer and the posterior diffractive optics layer.
Instead, Rosen (US Patent No.: 10,016,270) teaches a haptic portion that is coupled to the lens body (parts 505 and 507), the haptic portion comprising a third biocompatible material (materials such as acrylic, silicone, PMMA and others disclosed in column 16 lines 36-60, where said materials differ than the materials disclosed in the lens of Carson).
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 haptics of Rosen into Carson for the purpose of providing a means to hold the lens of Carson in place where the haptics are also disclosed as being biocompatible in column 16 lines 36-60.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US Pub No.: 2021/0294123) in view of Kelman (US Patent No.: 4,828,558) and Carson (US Pub No.: 2001/0018612) in further view of Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744).
Regarding claim 20, Weeber in view of Carson teach the method of claim 16. However, Weeber does not teach wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 25 and 50, and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 25 and 50.
Instead, Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2021/0251744) teaches wherein the first biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 25 and 50 (an Abbe number of 50 in [0099]), and the second biocompatible material has an Abbe number of between 25 and 50 (an Abbe number of 50 in [0099]).
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 Abbe number details of the lenses of Goldshleger into Carson for the purpose of providing an Abbe number not defined in Carson into the lenses of Carson, where defining the Abbe number is the measure of a material’s dispersion. As the Abbe numbers in [0099] of Goldshleger are defined for corneal and lens tissue, the Abbe numbers of Goldshleger will be applicable to the device of Carson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Juan (US Pub No.: 2009/0234449) was considered for an intraocular lens that teaches an efficiency of between 80% and 100% across two lenses in [0120]-[0121], where the combined efficiencies over the two lens groups. Weeber (US Pub No.: 2010/0100178) discloses an intraocular lens with two refractive profiles on different sides of the lens of figure 7.
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
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774