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 1.114A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (3 – 5 – 2026) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (3 – 5 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Gerardi et al. (US 20160263781 A1, hereinafter Gerardi) / Gerardi as modified does not teach the newly amended feature of forming an elongate haptic fluid chamber configured to contain a fluid within the haptic by immersing the molded haptic in a solvent to dissolve the soluble core component.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Gerardi / Gerardi as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As noted in the previous action Gerardi discloses on ([0022]) teaches that the inner mold 14 may be partially or fully sacrificial in order to release a casted IOL from the mold. For example, inner mold 14 may be formed from a material that can be dissolved with a solvent. (Claim 16) teaches wherein releasing the solidified lens-forming material from the inner mold comprises at least partially dissolving the inner mold with a solvent. As such, inner mold is understood to be a soluble inner mold component that is dissolved with a solvent.([0008]) teaches that certain accommodative IOLs may comprise a hollow shape or an open framework that allows the lens to change its shape by the flexure of certain lens elements. Such complex-shaped IOLs often have one or more internal voids or chambers (which may be filled with an optical fluid). ([0020]) teaches that the cast IOL and inner mold 14 can subsequently be separated, which may yield a desired hollow or cage-shaped IOL. As such, Gerardi provides for molding a haptic that comprises either a hollow or cage-shaped IOL. Highlighting, while only a cage-shaped IOL is provided in the figures, it is understood that the molding allows for fabricating either hollow or cage-shaped IOLs. Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding fabricating a hollow shaped IOL that allows for the retention of an optical fluid. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.Additionally, applicant’s claims are directed to a method of manufacturing a haptic. While the limitation is directed towards the intended use of the haptic, i.e., the haptic fluid chamber is configured to contain a fluid. Accordingly, the case law for relevance of structure in method claims may be recited. Where, to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structural limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure, Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31.Furthermore, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Gerardi / Gerardi as modified.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 5 – 6 & 68 – 69, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi et al. (US 20160263781 A1, hereinafter Gerardi) in view of Ge et al. (US 20190366660 A1) in view of Richardson et al (US 20060001186 A1, hereainafter Richardson)Regarding claim 1,
A method of manufacturing a haptic lens component, comprising:
providing a first mold component comprising a first molding surface defined by a first partial component cavity;
providing a second mold component comprising a second molding surface defined by a second partial component cavity;
placing at least part of a soluble core component on either the first molding surface or the second molding surface;
mating a second mold component to the first mold component to form an assembled mold,
wherein a segment of the soluble core component is disposed within a mold cavity formed by the first partial component cavity and the second partial component cavity;
introducing a lens component material into the mold cavity;
curing the lens component material within the assembled mold to form a molded haptic lens component; and
forming an elongate haptic fluid chamber configured to contain a fluid within the haptic by immersing the molded haptic lens component in a solvent to dissolve the soluble core component
Gerardi teaches the following:
& b.) ([0025]) teaches that the first outer mold portion 12 a and second outer mold portion 12 b of outer mold 12 may each be fabricated out of metal using 3D Printing followed by precision lathing/milling of certain surfaces cavities 20 a and/or 20 b. Where the mold portion 12 a & 12 b comprising the cavities 20 a and/or 20 acts as applicant’s first and second mold components, respectively.
([0025]) teaches that a corresponding inner mold 14 may be fabricated out of a relatively compressible material (e.g., plastic), the inner mold being formed such that, when inserted into the outer mold 12, the space between the inner mold 14 and outer mold 12 corresponds to the structure of a desired article. Following fabrication of the outer mold 12 and inner mold 14, the inner mold 14 may be inserted into the outer mold 12, the outer mold portions being secured together so as to compress the inner mold 14 therebetween (e.g., such that at least a portion of outer surface of the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12). As such, with the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12 is understood to provide for applicant’s soluble core component on first molding surface or second molding surface of the respective mold component. ([0022]) teaches that the inner mold 14 may be partially or fully sacrificial in order to release a casted IOL from the mold. For example, inner mold 14 may be formed from a material that can be dissolved with a solvent. As such, inner mold is understood to be a soluble inner mold component.
([0020]) teaches that the space defined by cavities 20 a and 20 b of outer mold 12, and first outer mold portion 12 a and a second outer mold portion 12 b may be secured together in any suitable manner. As such, the first and second mold portion are understood to pair / close to form an assembled mold.
([0025]) teaches that following fabrication of the outer mold 12 and inner mold 14, the inner mold 14 may be inserted into the outer mold 12, the outer mold portions being secured together so as to compress the inner mold 14 therebetween (e.g., such that at least a portion of outer surface of the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12). As such, a segment of the soluble core component is disposed within a mold cavity.
([0020]) teaches that once the portions of outer mold 12 are secured together, a suitable lens-forming material (e.g., silicone) may be introduced into outer mold 12 via ports 18 b and 18 b (which, despite being depicted at particular location in outer mold 12, may be located at any suitable location). As such, the introduction of a lens component material into the mold cavity is understood to be disclosed.
([0025]) teaches that after curing of the lens material, the outer mold 12 can be separated and the inner mold 14 can be removed. The lens can then be separated from the inner mold 14 by various means. Accordingly, curing of the lens materials is understood to transpire within the mold and the inner mold intact, before separating the outer mold and the inner mold.
([0022]) teaches that the inner mold 14 may be partially or fully sacrificial in order to release a casted IOL from the mold. For example, inner mold 14 may be formed from a material that can be dissolved with a solvent. (Claim 16) teaches wherein releasing the solidified lens-forming material from the inner mold comprises at least partially dissolving the inner mold with a solvent. As such, inner mold is understood to be a soluble inner mold component that is dissolved with a solvent.([0008]) teaches that certain accommodative IOLs may comprise a hollow shape or an open framework that allows the lens to change its shape by the flexure of certain lens elements. Such complex-shaped IOLs often have one or more internal voids or chambers (which may be filled with an optical fluid). ([0020]) teaches that the cast IOL and inner mold 14 can subsequently be separated, which may yield a desired hollow or cage-shaped IOL. As such, Gerardi provides for molding a haptic that comprises either a hollow or cage-shaped IOL. Highlighting, while only a cage-shaped IOL is provided in the figures, it is understood that the molding allows for fabricating either hollow or cage-shaped IOLs. Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding fabricating a hollow shaped IOL that allows for the retention of an optical fluid. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.Additionally, applicant’s claims are directed to a method of manufacturing a haptic. While the limitation is directed towards the intended use of the haptic, i.e., the haptic fluid chamber is configured to contain a fluid. Accordingly, the case law for relevance of structure in method claims may be recited. Where, to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structural limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure, Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31.Furthermore, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 1, Gerardi is silent on curing of the lens component material within the assembled mold. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold, (Abstract), Ge suggests details regarding curing the lens component material within the assembled mold, and in this regard, Ge teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that (3) curing thermally or actinically the polymerizable composition in the lens mold to form a unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor; (4) separating the mold into the male and female mold halves, with the unprocessed silicone hydrogel adhered on a lens-adhered mold half which is one of the male and female mold halves; (5) removing the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor from the lens-adhered mold half before the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor is contacted with water or any liquid. Highlighting, the curing step is understood to transpire within the mold / prior to removing the article from the mold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi. By modifying the lens manufacturing process to include curing of the lens material within the mold, as taught by Ge. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement curing of the lens material within the mold as it provides for using various curing means including UV/visible irradiation, ionizing radiation (e.g. gamma ray or X-ray irradiation), microwave irradiation, amongst others, ([0036]). Highlighting, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely curing within the mold or outside the mold is understood to a binary option and/or the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.Regarding Claim 1, Gerardi as modified by Ge is silent regarding an elongate haptic fluid chamber configured to contain a fluid within the haptic by. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold, (Abstract), Richardson suggests details regarding an elongate haptic fluid chamber configured to contain a fluid within the haptic by, and in this regard, Richardson teaches the following:
([0026]) teaches that in one exemplary accommodating IOL system 40, the anterior optic 42 and posterior optic 44 are coupled together by at least one, but preferably a plurality of haptics 46 extending therebetween. ([0005]) teaches The AIOL blank includes at least one semi-finished haptic larger than the finished haptic or haptics of the finished AIOL. ([0026]) teaches that other haptic arrangements of from one to five or more in number are envisioned and can be selected by those of ordinary skill in the art to satisfy the requirement of sufficient flexibility to provide the accommodated focusing of the IOL system and simultaneous stiffness to maintain the axial position and orientation of the IOL optics. Highlighting, while (Fig. 6) shows an AIOL blank of the invention. The embodiment depicted is illustrated to provide for a single haptic in which a single opening (44) is provided to provide an insert (core). Highlighting, that providing only a single opening (and haptic) allows for forming an elongate haptic fluid chamber configured to contain a fluid within the haptic (similar to a cup or canteen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi. By modifying the lens manufacturing process to include single haptic in which a single opening, as taught by Richardson. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a single haptic in which a single opening as it provides for tailoring the flexibility and/or stiffness of the IOL system to maintain the axial position and orientation of the IOL optics, ([0026]). Accordingly, the number of haptic is understood to impact the flexibility and/or stiffness of the IOL system. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising:
separating the first mold component from the second mold component after curing the lens component material to form the molded haptic; and
removing the molded haptic from the first mold component or the second mold component,
wherein at least a segment of the soluble core component is within the molded haptic when the molded haptic is removed and
wherein another segment of the soluble core component is not within the molded haptic.
Gerardi teaches the following:
& c.) ([0025]) teaches that after curing of the lens material, the outer mold 12 can be separated and the inner mold 14 can be removed. The lens can then be separated from the inner mold 14 by various means. As such, the removal of the inner mold is understood to transpire after the article is removed from the mold. Accordingly, the inner mold is understood to remain within the article during curing, separating of the mold, and removal of the molded article from the mold.
Regarding Claim 5, Gerardi is silent on details regarding curing of the lens component. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold, (Abstract), Ge suggests details regarding curing the lens component material within the assembled mold, and in this regard, Ge teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that (3) curing thermally or actinically the polymerizable composition in the lens mold to form an unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor; (4) separating the mold into the male and female mold halves, with the unprocessed silicone hydrogel adhered on a lens-adhered mold half which is one of the male and female mold halves. Highlighting, the separating the first mold component from the second mold component after curing and prior to removing the article from the mold is understood to be disclosed.
([0007]) teaches (5) removing the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor from the lens-adhered mold half before the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor is contacted with water or any liquid. Highlighting, the removing of the component from the mold after curing and separating the mold is understood to be disclosed.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 5, Gerardi as modified by Ge is silent on details regarding a segment of the core component is not within the molded haptic. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold, (Abstract), Richardson suggests details regarding a segment of the core component is not within the molded haptic, and in this regard, Richardson teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches after introducing and curing the mold material in the mold cavity, the mold is opened, and the mold insert is removed therefrom with the IOL blank formed about and remaining with the insert. The mold insert may thereafter be used as a fixture for holding the AIOL blank when performing any desired processing operations on the AIOL blank e.g., processing the haptics into their finished form, polishing, extraction, hydration, inspection etc. ([0032]) teaches that a mold insert 150 and an AIOL blank 140 formed about the insert 150 (FIG. 8). The insert 150 may or may not include a handle 152 and be part of an injection mold core (not shown) for molding an AIOL blank 140 having first and second optics 142, 144 with at least one semi-finished haptic 146 extending between the first and second optics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge. By further modifying the mold core to comprise a handle 152, as taught by Richardson. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide a mold core comprise a handle 152 as it provides for a fixture for holding the AIOL blank when performing any desired processing operations on the AIOL blank (e.g., processing the haptics into their finished form, polishing, extraction, hydration, inspection etc., ([0007]). Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein placing at least part of the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface comprises
placing at least one positioning piece of the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface,
wherein the at least one positioning piece is not placed within the mold cavity.
Gerardi teaches the following:
– c.) ([0020]) teaches that a space is provided between outer mold 12 and inner mold 14 corresponds to the shape of a desired lens. ([0020]) adding that the inner mold 14 can subsequently be separated, which may yield a desired hollow or cage-shaped lens. As such, the shape of the inner mold is understood to tailor the shape of the lens fabricated. With ([0025]) teaches that following fabrication of the outer mold 12 and inner mold 14, the inner mold 14 may be inserted into the outer mold 12, the outer mold portions being secured together so as to compress the inner mold 14 therebetween (e.g., such that at least a portion of outer surface of the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12). As such, the soluble core component is understood to be on a molding surface such that a portion of the soluble core component is at one end of the soluble core component and a second portion of the soluble core component is coupled to the inner mold 14 that is not in contact with the first molding surface while disposed within a mold cavity. Highlighting, Gerardi is understood to disclose an inner core with a shape that provides for the above detailed. However, if it is determined that the shape of the inner mold does not provide for the above detailed. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein placing at least part of the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface comprises
placing at least one positioning piece of the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface,
wherein the at least one positioning piece is not placed within the mold cavity.
Gerardi teaches the following:
– c.) ([0020]) teaches that a space is provided between outer mold 12 and inner mold 14 corresponds to the shape of a desired lens. ([0020]) adding that the inner mold 14 can subsequently be separated, which may yield a desired hollow or cage-shaped lens. As such, the shape of the inner mold is understood to tailor the shape of the lens fabricated. With ([0025]) teaches that following fabrication of the outer mold 12 and inner mold 14, the inner mold 14 may be inserted into the outer mold 12, the outer mold portions being secured together so as to compress the inner mold 14 therebetween (e.g., such that at least a portion of outer surface of the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12). As such, the soluble core component is understood to be on a molding surface such that a portion of the soluble core component is at one end of the soluble core component and a second portion of the soluble core component is coupled to the inner mold 14 that is not in contact with the first molding surface while disposed within a mold cavity.
Regarding Claim 6, Gerardi as modified by Ge is silent on details regarding a segment of the core component is not within the molded haptic. In analogous art as applied above, Richardson suggests details regarding the shape of the core component within the molded haptic, and in this regard, Richardson teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches after introducing and curing the mold material in the mold cavity, the mold is opened, and the mold insert is removed therefrom with the IOL blank formed about and remaining with the insert. The mold insert may thereafter be used as a fixture for holding the AIOL blank when performing any desired processing operations on the AIOL blank e.g., processing the haptics into their finished form, polishing, extraction, hydration, inspection etc. ([0032]) teaches that a mold insert 150 and an AIOL blank 140 formed about the insert 150 (FIG. 8). The insert 150 may or may not include a handle 152 and be part of an injection mold core (not shown) for molding an AIOL blank 140 having first and second optics 142, 144 with at least one semi-finished haptic 146 extending between the first and second optics.
& c.) ([0002]) teaches that co-pending application Ser. No. 10/445,762 (equivalent to US 20040238980 A1, hereinafter Kyburz) filed May 27, 2003, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Highlighting, Kyburz on ([0021]) states that illustrated in (Figs. 4 & 5A – 5B) the center block is preferably connected to a handle 50 that extends through the blocks 44, 46. The handle 50 is equipped with offset pins 52 that guarantee the proper installation of the center block 48 into the mold 26, preventing the accidental insertion in a backwards or upside-down orientation. As such, the center block 48 is found to comprise a handle 50, which is a portion of the core (as disclosed by Richardson). Thus, as illustrated in Kyburz (and fully incorporated within Richardson) (Figs. 4 & 5A – 5B) the handle 50 is shown to be a positioning piece of the soluble core component found both on the first / and or second molding surface and outside the mold.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 5, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, Richardson is understood to disclose an inner core with a shape that provides for the above detailed. However, if it is determined that the shape of the inner mold does not provide for the above detailed. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 68 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the lens component material is made in part of curable acrylic monomers.
Gerardi teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that the composition comprises (d) an hydrophobic acrylic monomer that is capable of dissolving components (a) to (c) to form a solution. ([0023]) teaches that the present disclosure may be useful for soft materials that are not easily machined (e.g. hydrogels, silicones or soft acrylics). ([0027]) teaches that the lens-forming materials can be a hydrogel or a hydrophobic acrylic, such as the AcrySof® acrylic. As such, the lens component composition is understood to comprise a curable acrylic monomer.
Regarding claim 69 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the elongate body of the soluble core component is curved, and
wherein the elongate haptic fluid chamber formed is curved.
Gerardi teaches the following:
& b.) ([0011]) teaches that the inner mold configured to be inserted into the cavity of the outer mold such that a space between the inner mold and the outer mold defines the shape of the intraocular lens. As such, the shape of inner mold / soluble core and outer mold are understood to tailor the shape of the intraocular lens fabricated. ([0022]) teaches that the inner mold 14 may be formed from a material that can be dissolved with a solvent. As illustrated in (Fig. 1C) the elongate body of the inner core / soluble core component is curved.Highlighting as illustrated in (Fig. 2), the resulting the elongated haptic fluid chamber formed after molding is shown to be curved. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variable may be recited. Where, t is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, the case law for change in shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. Namely, changing the shape of the inner mold / soluble core and outer mold still provides for mold used to fabricate intraocular lens (of different shapes).
Regarding claim 69 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the elongate body of the soluble core component is curved, and
wherein the elongate haptic fluid chamber formed is curved.
Gerardi teaches the following:
([0011]) teaches that the inner mold configured to be inserted into the cavity of the outer mold such that a space between the inner mold and the outer mold defines the shape of the intraocular lens. As such, the shape of inner mold / soluble core and outer mold are understood to tailor the shape of the intraocular lens fabricated. ([0022]) teaches that the inner mold 14 may be formed from a material that can be dissolved with a solvent. As illustrated in (Fig. 1C) the elongate body of the inner core / soluble core component is curved.
Regarding Claim 69, Gerardi as modified by Ge is silent on details regarding the soluble core component comprises an elongate and curved core body. In analogous art as applied above, Richardson suggests details regarding the shape of the core component within the molded haptic, and in this regard, Richardson teaches the following:
& b.) ([0032]) teaches that the invention provides an assembly comprising a mold insert 150 and an AIOL blank 140 formed about the insert 150 (FIG. 8). The insert 150 may or may not include a handle 152 and be part of an injection mold core (not shown) for molding an AIOL blank 140 having first and second optics 142, 144 with at least one semi-finished haptic 146 extending between the first and second optics. Thus, the surface 158 of the insert 150 extending between the first and second optical surfaces 154, 156 thereof form the inside surfaces of the IOL haptic 146 or haptics. ([0033]) teaches after injection molding and curing retracting mold insert 150 through molded-in opening 141 formed by handle neck 151. As such, the handle 152 and part of an injection mold core provides for a core component comprising an elongate and the surface 158 provides for a curved core body of the core component / mold insert. As illustrated in (Fig. 6) the resulting elongated haptic fluid chamber formed is curved.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 5, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Highlighting, Richardson is understood to disclose an inner core with a shape that provides for the above detailed. However, if it is determined that the shape of the inner mold does not provide for the above detailed. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.B.) Claim(s) 2 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge and Richardson and in further view of Tokarski et al. (US 20080001317 A1, hereinafter Tokarski)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the soluble core component is made in part of polyvinyl alcohol.
Gerardi teaches the following:
([0021]) teaches that inner mold 14 may be constructed from polypropylene, Teflon, PMMA, acetal resin, hydrophobic acrylic, or any other suitable material. Highlighting, that that the above-mentioned materials are all thermoplastics.
Regarding Claim 2, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on the soluble core component is made in part of polyvinyl alcohol. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold that comprises a water-soluble component, (Abstract), Tokarski suggests details regarding the soluble core component being made in part of polyvinyl alcohol, and in this regard, Tokarski teaches the following:
([0070]) teaches that invention comprises a mold part with a surface layer 410 – 402 of water-soluble material. The water-soluble material may be dissolved which will detach the formed lens 108 from the mold part 101-102. Specific examples of material that can be used to practice the present invention can include: Aqua-Sol 1220 as a water soluble modified polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and non-water-soluble materials, such as Zeonor 1060R® and polypropylene, polystyrene and polypropylene, Zeonor 1060R® and polyvinyl alcohol; polystyrene and polyvinyl alcohol; and other combinations of different material or same type resins with differentials in melt viscosity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the soluble core component to be made in part of polyvinyl alcohol, as taught by Tokarski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide the soluble core component to be made in part of polyvinyl alcohol as it provides for a mold assembly can be submersed in water to allow the convex cup to dissolved, ([0072]). Additionally, the use of a known material, namely polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), in a known environment and its intended use i.e, a water-soluble for a lens mold component provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the solvent is water.
Regarding Claim 3, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on the solvent being. In analogous art as applied above, Tokarski suggests details regarding the solvent being water, and in this regard, Tokarski teaches the following:
([0073]) teaches that the modified PVOH can comprise only the concave casting cup, the convex cup is demolded from the mold assembly using any method of demold (i.e. pry). The lens and concave cup are then submersed in water to allow the concave cup to dissolve. The advantage of this includes improved lens release from the concave cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the solvent to water, as taught by Tokarski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize water as the solvent as it provides for an alternative to exposing the lens to an organic solvent, such as isopropyl alcohol (hereinafter, “IPA”). Since IPA is flammable, handling IPA in a production environment requires additional safety measures be undertaken and appropriate disposal. All of which add cost and complexity to the process, ([0005]). Additionally, the use of a known material, namely water, in a known environment and its intended use i.e, a solvent for a water-soluble component in a mold for making a lens provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising heating the solvent and
agitating the solvent by sonication to expedite the dissolution of the soluble core component.
Regarding Claim 4, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on heating the solvent and agitating the solvent to expedite the dissolution of the soluble core component. In analogous art as applied above, Tokarski suggests details regarding heating the solvent and agitating the solvent to expedite the dissolution of the soluble core component, and in this regard, Tokarski teaches the following:
& b.) ([0082]) teaches that he dissolution time 501 of a mold part formed from water soluble material, such as a casting cup of modified PVOH, can be increased and/or decreased according to the process conditions under which the mold part is exposed to an aqueous solution. For example, increasing the temperature 502 and the agitation level 503 of the aqueous solution can increase the dissolution rate and decrease the dissolution time 501. ([0083]) teaches that contact with the water, using ultrasonic baths to agitate the water, and using additives in the water may also increase the dissolution rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the dissolution of the soluble mold component in the solvent by heating the solvent and agitating the solvent by sonication, as taught by Tokarski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to heat the solvent and agitate the solvent during the dissolution of the soluble mold component as it provides for tailoring the dissolution time of a mold part formed from water soluble material, ([0082]).
C.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge in view of Richardson and in further view of Ming-Chiang Tsai (US 20070104825 A1, hereinafter Tsai)Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein placing the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface comprises
placing at least one positioning piece of the soluble core component on the first molding surface or the second molding surface,
wherein the at least one positioning piece comprises a passageway to allow the lens component material to enter the mold cavity
Gerardi teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that a space is provided between outer mold 12 and inner mold 14 corresponds to the shape of a desired lens. ([0020]) adding that the inner mold 14 can subsequently be separated, which may yield a desired hollow or cage-shaped lens. As such, the shape of the inner mold is understood to tailor the shape of the lens fabricated. With ([0025]) teaches that following fabrication of the outer mold 12 and inner mold 14, the inner mold 14 may be inserted into the outer mold 12, the outer mold portions being secured together so as to compress the inner mold 14 therebetween (e.g., such that at least a portion of outer surface of the inner mold 14 is compressed against a corresponding inner surface of the outer metal 12). As such, the soluble core component is understood to be on a molding surface such that a portion of the soluble core component is at one end of the soluble core component and a second portion of the soluble core component is coupled to the inner mold 14 that is not in contact with the first molding surface while disposed within a mold cavity. Highlighting, Gerardi is understood to disclose an inner core with a shape that provides for the above detailed. However, if it is determined that the shape of the inner mold does not provide for the above detailed. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 7, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on the at least one positioning piece comprises a passageway to allow the lens component material to enter the mold cavity. In analogous art as applied above, Tsai suggests details regarding the shape of the core component within the molded haptic, and in this regard, Tsai teaches the following:
& b.) ([0023]) teaches that the core insert 50 defines a secondary flow passage 57. The secondary flow passage 57 has an upright passage portion 571, four horizontal passage portions 573, and four feed passage portions 575. The upright passage portion 571 is defined in the core insert 50 and runs perpendicularly through the middle of the upper end surface 51. ([0028]) teaches that the molten plastic flows into the receiving space 80 and the lower half molding cavities 711 via the upright passage portions 571, the horizontal passage portions 573, and the feed passage portions 57. As illustrated in (Fig. 8 & 11), the core with one positioning piece is found to be on the first molding surface or the second molding surface and comprises a passageway to allow the lens component material to enter the mold cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the inner mold to comprises a passageway to allow the lens component material to enter the mold cavity, as taught by Tsai. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide a mold core to comprise a passageway to allow the lens component material to enter the mold cavity as it provides for the molten plastic materials to flow into the receiving space of the molding cavities, ([0028]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law . Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. D.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge in view of Richardson in view of Takemi et al. (WO 2008102582 A1, hereinafter Takemi) and in further view of Wikipedia’s Article on O-ring (O-Rings, hereinafter WAOR, 2021)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first molding surface is further defined by a first partial plug cavity connected to the first partial component cavity,
wherein the second molding surface is defined by a second partial plug cavity connected to the second partial component cavity,
wherein the method further comprises:
placing a soluble plug within the first partial plug cavity or the second partial plug cavity prior to forming the assembled mold,
wherein the soluble plug occupies a plug receiving space formed by the first partial plug cavity and the second partial plug cavity when the second mold component is mated to the first mold component; and
curing the lens component material within the assembled mold,
wherein the assembled mold comprises the soluble plug,
wherein the soluble plug is made of the same soluble material as the soluble core component and is dissolvable in the solvent
Gerardi teaches the following:
([0011]) teaches that an apparatus for manufacturing an intraocular lens includes an outer mold constructed of a first material and having a cavity, an inner mold constructed of a second material, the second material being more compressible than the second material, the inner mold configured to be inserted into the cavity of the outer mold such that a space between the inner mold and the outer mold defines the shape of the intraocular lens, and one or more ports in the outer mold, the one or more ports facilitating introduction of a lens-forming material into the space between the inner mold and the outer mold. As such, the assembled mold comprises the soluble plug.
([0021]) teaches that inner mold 14 may be constructed of a relatively (relative to outer mold 12) soft material, compressible material such as plastic. For example, inner mold 14 may be constructed from polypropylene, Teflon, PMMA, acetal resin, hydrophobic acrylic, or any other suitable material.
Regarding Claim 8, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on implementing a soluble plug within the a partial plug cavity on the mold. In analogous art regarding the molding of an optical lens element, Takemi suggests details regarding the mold comprising a soluble plug within the a partial plug cavity on the mold, and in this regard, Takemi teaches the following:
– d.) (Pg. 4-5, Last ¶ — First ¶) teaches that the mold used in this embodiment has a basically similar structure to the upper mold 10 and the lower mold 20 in the above-described embodiment but uses an O-ring 30' as a sealing member. More specifically, a circumferential groove 25 is formed near the outer periphery of the lower mold 20, and an O-ring 30' is placed inside the groove. The O-ring 30' is brought into contact with the lower surface of the upper mold 10 when the molds are closed, thereby preventing leakage of the liquid thermosetting resin. With (Pg. 3, ¶9) teaching that the upper mold 10 comprise upper cylindrical recess 13 Upper annular recess 14 Upper straight recess 15, with the lower mold 21 Lower cavity 22 Lower cylindrical recess 23 Lower annular recess 24 Lower straight recess 25. As such, both molds are understood to comprise recess in which the Sealing member 30 is placed within to provide for preventing leakage of the liquid thermosetting resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the molds utilized for manufacturing lenses to comprise recess and an O-ring, as taught by Takemi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include recess and an O-ring as it provides for preventing leakage of the liquid thermosetting resin, (Pg. 4-5, last ¶ — first ¶). Regarding Claim 8, Gerardi is silent on details regarding curing of the lens component. In analogous art for forming a lens in a mold, (Abstract), Ge suggests details regarding curing the lens component material within the assembled mold, and in this regard, Ge teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches (5) removing the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor from the lens-adhered mold half before the unprocessed silicone hydrogel lens precursor is contacted with water or any liquid. Highlighting, the removing of the component from the mold after curing and separating the mold is understood to be disclosed.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 8, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson and Takemi is silent on the O-ring comprising soluble material. In analogous art regarding O-rings, WAOR suggests details regarding the material selection for O-ring, in particular O-ring comprising soluble material, and in this regard, WAOR teaches the following:
(Material) teaches a variety of materials that are known to make an O-ring. Amongst those materials listed is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) amongst othervarious rubbers, elastomers, thermoset, and thermoplastics. Highlighting, that Gerardi mention of Teflon is understood to be a commonly known brand name of PTFE. As such, the use of a soluble plug that is made of the same soluble material as the soluble core component and is dissolvable in the solvent is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson and Takemi. By further modifying the O-ring inserted in the molds utilized for manufacturing lenses to comprise an O-ring manufactured from various rubbers, elastomers thermoset and thermoplastics, as taught by WAOR. Highlighting, one would be motivated an O-ring fabricated from one of the aforementioned materials as it provides for tailoring various properties of the O-ring utilized such as resistance to heat and a resistance variety of chemicals, (Materials, Fluoroelastomer). Highlighting, implementing a known material in a known environment provides for the recitation of known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.E.) Claim(s) 65 – 67, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge in view of Richardson and in further view of Piotrowski et al. (US 20200070453 A1, hereinafter Piotrowski)
Regarding claim 65 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member after mating the second mold component to the first mold component.
Regarding Claim 65, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member. In analogous art regarding a lens manducated via a mold, (Abstract), Piotrowski suggests details regarding securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member, and in this regard, Piotrowski teaches the following:
([0052]) teaches that the front mould 30 with the attached foil 10 via the cured fixation dots 141 is combined with a back mould 120 and sealed with a sealing element (tape or gasket) 90 to build a closed mould cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the lens mold to include a sealing tape, as taught by Piotrowski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a sealing tape as it provides for creating a production assembly, ([0052]). Highlighting, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 66 as applied to claim 65,
Wherein the clamping member is a clamping cap configured to be detachably fastened to a top of the first mold component when the second mold component is mated to the first mold component.
Regarding Claim 66, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on the clamping member being a clamping cap configured to be detachably fastened to a top of the mold component. In analogous art as applied above, Piotrowski suggests details regarding the clamping member being a clamping cap configured to be detachably fastened to a top of the mold component, and in this regard, Piotrowski teaches the following:
([0051]) teaches that the tape 90 is wound around the moulds 30 and 120 creating a production assembly with a fixed position relationship between the two moulds 30 and 120 and thus of the inside positioned foil 10, affixed to the front mould 30 via the cured fixation dots 141. As such, the tape is understood to be a detachably fastened clamping member fastened the first mold component and the second mold component.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 66, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Additionally, while the winding of the tape around the moulds is not depicted to include winding around the top of mold component. The case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 67 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the second mold component comprises a vent configured to allow air to escape while the lens component material is introduced into the mold cavity.
Regarding Claim 67, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on a vent configured to allow air to escape while the lens component material. In analogous art as applied above, Piotrowski suggests details regarding implementing a vent configured to allow air to escape while the lens component material, and in this regard, Piotrowski teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that an opening, a breather hole, is provided in the tape, preferably on the upper side of the assembly. ([0054]) if the filling takes place from the upper side of the assembly, then the breather hole is provided near the first opening. If the filling takes place under pressure from the underside of the assembly, then the breather hole is provided opposite to the filler opening. This allows the monomer to either flow from the top to the bottom, filling the vertically oriented cavities 45 and 155 from above, or to push the monomer through the opening from below and supplant the remaining gas or air in the cavities 45 and 155. As such, a vent provided on the second mold component configured to allow air to escape while the lens component material is introduced into the mold cavity is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the lens manufacturing process to include a mold that is provided with a breather hole, as taught by Piotrowski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a breather hole as it provides for the monomer to flow filling the cavities, ([0053]). Highlighting, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
F.) Claim(s) 65 & 70, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge in view of Richardson and in further view of Akanabe et al. (US 20030218264 A1, hereinafter Akanabe)Regarding claim 65 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member after mating the second mold component to the first mold component.
Regarding Claim 65, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member. In analogous art regarding a lens manducated via a mold, (Abstract), Akanabe suggests details regarding securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member, and in this regard, Akanabe teaches the following:
([0052]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 5) jig 2 on which the formed die material 4 has been attached (see FIG. 1(b)) is fixed temporarily on base board 20 on which a plurality of stays 21 are embedded by the use of bolt 11. On the other hand, panel 23 is fixed on the end face of supporting member 5 by the use of bolt 12. Between the base board 21 and panel 23 is kept by inserting thin shim 24 between upper ends of plural stays 21 and panel 23. As such, the first mold component / the formed die material 4 and the second mold component / jig 2 are found to be secured together by a clamping member comprising a on base board 20 and panel 23 on which a plurality of stays 21 are between is found.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson. By further modifying the lens mold to include a mold clamping structure, as taught by Akanabe. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a mold clamping structure as it provides for both molding members to be held in parallel with each other, this is effective when processing accuracy is hard to be improved, or accuracy of positioning at a stopper position is hard to be improved because of, for example, a small area of the connection surface, ([0032]). Highlighting, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 70 as applied to claim 66,
Wherein the clamping cap is screwed onto the first mold component.
Regarding Claim 70, Gerardi as modified by Ge and Richardson is silent on the clamping member is screwed onto the first mold component. In analogous art as applied above, Akanabe suggests details regarding securing the first mold component to the second mold component using a clamping member, and in this regard, Akanabe teaches the following:
([0052]) teaches as illustrated in (Fig. 5) jig 2 on which the formed die material 4 has been attached (see FIG. 1(b)) is fixed temporarily on base board 20 on which a plurality of stays 21 are embedded by the use of bolt 11. On the other hand, panel 23 is fixed on the end face of supporting member 5 by the use of bolt 12. Accordingly, each of the first mold / formed die material 4 and the second mold / jig 2 are found to be screwed onto the clamping cap.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 65, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.G.) Claim(s) 71 – 72, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerardi in view of Ge in view of Richardson in view of Piotrowski and in further view of Doke et al. (US 6276920 B1, hereinafter Doke)Regarding claim 71 as applied to claim 67,
Wherein the vent is defined along part of the second molding surface.
Regarding Claim 71, Gerardi as modified by Ge Richardson and Piotrowski is silent on the vent is defined along part of the second molding surface. In analogous art for a mold assembly for forming a lens blank, (Abstract), Doke suggests details regarding the vent is defined along part of the second molding surface, and in this regard, Doke teaches the following:
(Col. 6, lines 43 – 47) teaches the at least one air vent is effective to prevent expansion of the air in the liquid reservoir due to a temperature rise upon heating of the liquid monomer composition in the mold cavity for polymerization of the monomer composition. In this respect, it is noted that the expansion of the air would cause a movement of the upper mold in the direction away from the intermediate sleeve, resulting in an undesirable increase in the volume of the mold cavity, which may deteriorate the dimensional and configuration accuracy of the lens blank formed. This drawback can be effectively prevented by the air vent or vents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a lens of Gerardi as modified by Ge, Richardson and Piotrowski. By further modifying the lens mold to provide a vent in the molding surface, as taught by Doke. Highlighting, one would be motivated to a vent in the molding surface as it provides for preventing expansion of the air in the liquid reservoir due to a temperature rise upon heating of the liquid monomer composition in the mold cavity for polymerization, (Col. 6, lines 43 – 47). Highlighting, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 72 as applied to claim 71,
Wherein the vent extends to a periphery of the second mold component.
Regarding Claim 72, Gerardi as modified by Ge, Richardson and Piotrowski is silent on the vent extends to a periphery of the second mold component. In analogous art as applied above, Doke suggests details regarding the vent extends to a periphery of the second mold component, and in this regard, Doke teaches the following:
(Col. 9, lines 44 – 48) teaches that the outward flange 22 has an air vent or breather hole 28 formed through the entire thickness of its radially inner part, in communication with the above-indicated annular space between the cylindrical portion 18 and the engaging portion 26. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 4) the vents are found to extending to a periphery of the second mold component.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 71, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goodenough et al. (US 20070292555 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Contact lens molds and systems and methods for producing contact lens molds are described. The contact lens mold sections include two optical quality surfaces, a flange circumscribing at least a portion of the two optical quality surfaces.
Liu et al. (US 20090230575 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the invention provide a method for cast-molding hydrogel contact lenses, especially silicone hydrogel contact lenses by using plastic molds of a poly(cycloalkylene-dialkylene terephthalate) copolymer. These plastic molds do not need to be degassed and stored in an oxygen-free atmosphere (e.g., N2 or Ar) before being used for cast-molding silicone hydrogel contact lenses in the absence of oxygen and resultant silicone hydrogel lenses
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights