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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/1/2025 has been entered. The previous objection to claims 2, 11, and 20-22 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. Claims 2, 5-11, and 13-22 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “peripherical” in line 21 and in line 24 , which appears to be a misspelling of the word – peripheral –. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent received within the toroidal peripheral space and coated with a slow release pharmaceutical agent.” In lines 22-24. It remains unclear how the toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent can be coated with a slow release pharmaceutical agent. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets the coating to apply only to the prostheses, as disclosed in paragraph 0104 of applicant’s specification, and since the prostheses is no long claimed, the claim requires a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent received within the toroidal peripheral space.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the … non-dissolvable prosthesis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 currently depends from claim 1, which is canceled. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets claim 22 to depend from claim 2.
Claim 22 recites the phrase “can be” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the one or more technology devices is roughly 6mm thick, which is described in paragraph 0134 of the specification as being less than or equal to about 6 mm.
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) 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0128710 A1 to Eggleston (Eggleston) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275923 A1 to Haffner et al. (Haffner).
Regarding at least claim 2
Eggleston teaches an adjustable ocular insert to be implanted during refractive cataract surgery (abstract). Eggleston meets the limitations of a prosthetic capsular device (figs. 13-16) configured to be inserted in a natural capsular bag (paragraph 0069 discloses positioning the insert/device in the capsular bag after a cataract has been removed) of an eye after removal of a lens (paragraph 0003 discloses that a cataract surgery includes surgical removal and replacement of the clouded lens).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Radially inward taper towards opening)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
386
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The device of Eggleston comprises a housing structure (base annulus; 202) having a discoid shape configured to contain one or more intraocular lenses or technology devices (figs. 15-16, for example, show that the annulus/housing has a discoid shape that is configured to contain one or more intraocular lenses; 200 as disclosed in paragraph 0083), the housing structure (202) comprising: a longitudinal axis (the housing/annulus has a longitudinal axis as shown in figs. 15-16); a posterior side; an anterior side opposite the posterior side, the anterior side comprising an anterior opening (216); a continuous lateral side extending between the posterior side and the anterior side (figs. 15-16 show a posterior/back side, an anterior/front side, and a continuous lateral side as shown by circular body 214); a toroidal peripheral space outside a visual axis of the eye and at least partially defined by the posterior side, the anterior side, and the continuous lateral side (the space defined by the front, back and body of the device includes a toroidal peripheral space that is outside a visual axis of the eye as claimed), wherein the toroidal peripheral space is configured to contain the one or more intraocular lenses (200) or technology devices (paragraph 0085 discloses introduction of the lens into the body through opening 216), and wherein the anterior opening (216) is configured to allow insertion of the one or more intraocular lenses or technology devices into the cavity toroidal peripheral space of the housing structure through the anterior opening (paragraph 0085 discloses introduction of the lens into the body through opening 216); and an exterior surface of the housing structure comprising a middle portion, wherein the exterior surface of the housing structure tapers radially inward from the middle portion to the anterior opening (annotated fig. 16 above shows a radially inward taper from the middle portion to the anterior opening 216).
Eggleston further contemplates the addition of fluid channels or small pockets filled with drugs or pharmaceutical agents, such as glaucoma agents, located in the lens holder/annulus, for the purpose of treatment of particular diseases (paragraph 0073). However, Eggleston does not explicitly teach a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent received within the toroidal peripheral space and coated with a slow release pharmaceutical agent.
Haffner teaches an implantable intraocular physiological sensor for implantation within the human body in order to monitor physiological characteristics, for the purpose of effectively diagnosing and treating certain physiological conditions (abstract and paragraph 0005). Haffner also contemplates attachment of the sensor to some other ocular implant, such as an intraocular lens (paragraph 0048). Further, Haffner teaches that the devices disclosed may feature a drug coating and/or be adapted to deliver one or more drugs over a desired period of time by providing the drug in bulk form, e.g. placed in a recess or lumen in the device, or in the form of a tablet or mass that is affixed to or contained within the body of the device (paragraph 0081). The drug in bulk form, as taught by Haffner, is construed to a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Eggleston, which is an ocular implant that may be used to deliver drugs or pharmaceutical agents, to include a bulk form of drug in tablet form that is contained within the body of the implant, in order to device the drug over a desired period of time, as taught by Haffner. Placement of the drug in bulk form, which is a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as taught by Haffner, within the toroidal peripheral space of the annulus of Eggleston, would result in a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as claimed by applicant, since it is received within the toroidal peripheral space.
Regarding at least claim 5
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device comprises a biologically-compatible material (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is made of a biologically compatible, relatively inert material such as PMMA, silicone, or the like) .
Regarding at least claim 6
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device is deformable (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed, and is therefore deformable).
Regarding at least claim 10
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device comprises an optically clear material (paragraph 0029 discloses a clear lens).
Regarding at least claim 11
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also discloses that the drug/agent is included within the annulus and is shown to be located in a periphery of an interior of the housing structure, for the purpose of allowing for slow release of the medication used to treat particular diseases (paragraph 0073 and fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent or non-dissolvable prosthesis, as taught by Haffner, is located in a periphery of an interior of the housing structure of Eggleston, in order to allow unobstructed lens placement and avoid interference of the patient’s vision, as implicitly taught by Eggleston.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,585,456 to Blackmore (Blackmore).
Regarding at least claim 7
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed, and is therefore foldable). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device is foldable.
Blackmore teaches the capability of folding a similar device made of silicone (col. 1, lines 39-46 and col. 2, lines 56-61), for the purpose of inserting into a smaller incision than one where the unfolded diameter would require, thereby resulting in less trauma to the implantation site.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the device of Eggleston is foldable, in order to allow insertion into a smaller incision and cause less trauma to the implantation site, as taught by Blackmore.
Regarding at least claim 8
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device possesses sufficient elasticity to resume its pre-folded shape.
Blackmore teaches the capability of folding a similar device made of silicone and allowing it to return to its original shape (col. 1, lines 39-46 and col. 2, lines 56-61), for the purpose of inserting into a smaller incision than one where the unfolded diameter would require, thereby resulting in less trauma to the implantation site.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the device of Eggleston possesses sufficient elasticity to resume its pre-folded shape, in order to allow insertion into a smaller incision and cause less trauma to the implantation site and allow it to return to its original shape once implanted, as taught by Blackmore.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,339,375 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding at least claim 9
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device is self-expanding.
Lee teaches implantable devices for insertion within a lens capsule of an eye of a patient (abstract). Lee also teaches construction of the device from a structurally deformable material that can elastically or plastically deform without compromising integrity or making the device from a self-expanding biocompatible material, such as Nitinol, for the purpose of allowing the device to be restrained in a low profile configuration during delivery into the eye and to resume and maintain its expanded shape in vivo after the delivery process (col. 10, lines 9-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Eggleston in view of Haffner to be constructed from a self-expanding biocompatible material such that it is self-expanding, in order to allow the device to be restrained in a low profile configuration during delivery into the eye and to resume and maintain its expanded shape in vivo after the delivery process, as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner, and further in view of US Patent No. 8,505,822 to Wang et al. (Wang).
Regarding at least claim 13
Similar to the explanation above, Eggleston meets the limitations of a prosthetic capsular device (figs. 13-16) configured to be inserted in a natural capsular bag of an eye after removal of a lens (paragraph 0069 discloses positioning the insert/device in the capsular bag after a cataract has been removed) of an eye after removal of a lens (paragraph 0003 discloses that a cataract surgery includes surgical removal and replacement of the clouded lens), the device comprising: a housing structure (202) having a discoid shape (fig. 15) configured to contain one or more intraocular lenses (200) or one or more technology devices (paragraph 0083), the housing structure (202) comprising: a longitudinal axis (the housing/annulus has a longitudinal axis as shown in figs. 15-16); a posterior side; an anterior side opposite the posterior side, the anterior side comprising an anterior opening (216); a continuous lateral side extending between the posterior side and the anterior side (figs. 15-16 show a posterior/back side, an anterior/front side, and a continuous lateral side as shown by circular body 214); toroidal peripheral space outside a visual axis of the eye and at least partially defined by the posterior side, the anterior side, and the continuous lateral side (the space defined by the front, back and body of the device includes a toroidal peripheral space that is outside a visual axis of the eye as claimed), wherein the anterior opening (216) is configured to allow insertion of the one or more intraocular lenses or the one or more technology devices into the toroidal peripherical space of the housing structure through the anterior opening (paragraph 0085 discloses introduction of the lens into the body through opening 216); an exterior surface of the housing structure comprising a middle portion, wherein the exterior surface of the housing structure tapers radially inward from the middle portion to the anterior opening (annotated fig. 16 above shows a radially inward taper from the middle portion to the anterior opening 216).
Eggleston further contemplates the addition of fluid channels or small pockets filled with drugs or pharmaceutical agents, such as glaucoma agents, located in the lens holder/annulus, for the purpose of treatment of particular diseases (paragraph 0073). However, Eggleston does not explicitly teach a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent or a non-dissolvable prostheses received within the toroidal peripherical space and coated with a slow release pharmaceutical agent.
Haffner teaches an implantable intraocular physiological sensor for implantation within the human body in order to monitor physiological characteristics, for the purpose of effectively diagnosing and treating certain physiological conditions (abstract and paragraph 0005). Haffner also contemplates attachment of the sensor to some other ocular implant, such as an intraocular lens (paragraph 0048). Further, Haffner teaches that the devices disclosed may feature a drug coating and/or be adapted to deliver one or more drugs over a desired period of time by providing the drug in bulk form, e.g. placed in a recess or lumen in the device, or in the form of a tablet or mass that is affixed to or contained within the body of the device (paragraph 0081). The drug in bulk form, as taught by Haffner, is construed to be a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Eggleston, which is an ocular implant that may be used to deliver drugs or pharmaceutical agents, to include a bulk form of drug in tablet form that is contained within the body of the implant, in order to device the drug over a desired period of time, as taught by Haffner. Placement of the drug in bulk form, which is a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as taught by Haffner, within the toroidal peripheral space of the annulus of Eggleston, would result in a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as claimed by applicant, since it is received within the toroidal peripherical space.
However, Eggleston in view of Haffner does not teach an insulation structure that thermally insulates the eye from heat produced by the one or more technology devices inserted into the toroidal peripherical space. It is noted that the one or more technology devices are not positively recited in the claim (see lines 3-4 which recites “one or more intraocular lenses OR one or more technology device” and therefore this limitation can be considered moot since this limitation is met by the one or more intraocular lenses of Eggleston). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner relies on Wang to teach this limitation.
Wang teaches an apparatus comprising a deformable lens element that can be deformed to change an optical property thereof (abstract). Further, Wang teaches an embodiment that includes an insulating sleeve (97; fig. 19), for the purpose of preventing a short between the housing element and a conductive ring during use (col. 14, lines 26-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Eggleston in view of Haffner to include an insulation structure that thermally insulates the eye from heat produced by the one or more technology devices inserted into the toroidal peripherical space, in order to prevent a short between the housing and a conductive member, as taught by Wang, and therefore render a safer, more effective device.
Regarding at least claim 14
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device comprises a biologically-compatible material (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is made of a biologically compatible, relatively inert material such as PMMA, silicone, or the like) .
Regarding at least claim 15
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 2. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device is deformable (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed, and is therefore deformable).
Regarding at least claim 19
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also teaches wherein the prosthetic capsular device comprises an optically clear material (paragraph 0029 discloses a clear lens).
Regarding at least claim 20
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also discloses that the drug/agent is included within the annulus and is shown to be located in a periphery of an interior of the housing structure, for the purpose of allowing for slow release of the medication used to treat particular diseases (paragraph 0073 and fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent or non-dissolvable prosthesis, as taught by Haffner, is located in a periphery of an interior of the housing structure of Eggleston, in order to allow unobstructed lens placement and avoid interference of the patient’s vision, as implicitly taught by Eggleston.
Regarding at least claim 21
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Haffner teaches that the devices disclosed may feature a drug coating and/or be adapted to deliver one or more drugs over a desired period of time by providing the drug in bulk form, e.g. placed in a recess or lumen in the device, or in the form of a tablet or mass that is affixed to or contained within the body of the device (paragraph 0081). The drug in bulk form, as taught by Haffner, is construed to a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Eggleston, which is an ocular implant that may be used to deliver drugs or pharmaceutical agents, to include a bulk form of drug in tablet form that is contained within the body of the implant, in order to device the drug over a desired period of time, as taught by Haffner. Placement of the drug in bulk form, which is a slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as taught by Haffner, within the toroidal peripheral space of the annulus of Eggleston, would result in a toroidal shaped slow release fully or partially dissolvable pharmaceutical agent, as claimed by applicant, since it is received within the toroidal peripheral space.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Blackmore.
Regarding at least claim 16
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed, and is therefore foldable). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device is foldable.
Blackmore teaches the capability of folding a similar device made of silicone (col. 1, lines 39-46 and col. 2, lines 56-61), for the purpose of inserting into a smaller incision than one where the unfolded diameter would require, thereby resulting in less trauma to the implantation site.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the device of Eggleston is foldable, in order to allow insertion into a smaller incision and cause less trauma to the implantation site, as taught by Blackmore.
Regarding at least claim 17
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device possesses sufficient elasticity to resume its pre-folded shape.
Blackmore teaches the capability of folding a similar device made of silicone and allowing it to return to its original shape (col. 1, lines 39-46 and col. 2, lines 56-61), for the purpose of inserting into a smaller incision than one where the unfolded diameter would require, thereby resulting in less trauma to the implantation site.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the device of Eggleston possesses sufficient elasticity to resume its pre-folded shape, in order to allow insertion into a smaller incision and cause less trauma to the implantation site and allow it to return to its original shape once implanted, as taught by Blackmore.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding at least claim 18
Eggleston in view of Haffner and Wang teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 13. Eggleston also teaches that the body is resilient and may be made of silicone (paragraph 0069 discloses that the body is resilient, which is defined as the ability to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the prosthetic capsular device is self-expanding.
Lee teaches implantable devices for insertion within a lens capsule of an eye of a patient (abstract). Lee also teaches construction of the device from a structurally deformable material that can elastically or plastically deform without compromising integrity or making the device from a self-expanding biocompatible material, such as Nitinol, for the purpose of allowing the device to be restrained in a low profile configuration during delivery into the eye and to resume and maintain its expanded shape in vivo after the delivery process (col. 10, lines 9-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Eggleston in view of Haffner to be constructed from a self-expanding biocompatible material such that it is self-expanding, in order to allow the device to be restrained in a low profile configuration during delivery into the eye and to resume and maintain its expanded shape in vivo after the delivery process, as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggleston in view of Haffner, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0313521 to Angelopoulos (Angelopoulos).
Regarding at least claim 22
Eggleston in view of Haffner teaches the prosthetic capsular device of Claim 1 (interpreted as claim 2; see 112 rejection above). Eggleston also teaches that the base annulus (housing) has an appropriate depth or thickness and is intended to be secured in the capsular bag of the human eye after a cataract (paragraph 0085). However, Eggleston does not teach wherein the one or more technology devices can be roughly 6mm thick (which is interpreted as being less than or equal to about 6 mm thick; see paragraph 0134 of applicant’s specification and 112 rejection above). It is noted that the technology device is not positively recited in the claim (see lines 3-4 of claim 2, which recites “one or more intraocular lenses OR one or more technology device” and therefore this limitation can be considered moot since this limitation is met by the one or more intraocular lenses of Eggleston). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner relies on Angelopoulos to teach this limitation.
Angelopoulos teaches intraocular devices and associated methods (abstract). As shown in fig. 2, the body portion of the intraocular device has a thickness between about 0.1 mm and about 1.0 mm, for the purpose of being thin enough to allow capsular bag fusion to occur (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic capsular device of Eggleston, which is intended to be secured in the capsular bag of the human eye after a cataract, such that a technology device can be roughly 6 mm thick, in order to allow capsular bag fusion, as taught by Angelopoulos.
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 MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/M.A.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/BRIAN A DUKERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774