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 .
Response to Amendment
As of the reply filed 3/12/2026, claims 1-17 and 40-41 are pending. Claims 18-39 are cancelled, while claims 40-41 are new. Claims 1 and 5-7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 did not overcome the previously filed claim objection as the claim still reads “wherein the nozzle is configured to deform the intraocular lens a second predetermined configuration”, and while the extraneous “to” was removed, “deform the intraocular lens a second predetermined configuration” should still read “deform the intraocular lens to a second predetermined configuration” instead. Therefore, the objection to claim 6 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in view of the Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2: the limitation “deform the intraocular lens a second predetermined configuration” is missing a word and should be amended to “deform the intraocular lens to a second predetermined configuration” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 16-17, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biddle et al. (US PGPub 2014/0074107 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Biddle et al. discloses an intraocular lens injector device (100 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (110) including a cavity (120);
a projection (ramps 121a-d) extending into an interior of the cavity (120), wherein the cavity (120) is configured to receive a cassette (130) including an intraocular lens (150) disposed therein, wherein as the cassette (130) is inserted into the cavity (120), the projection (121a-d) deforms the intraocular lens (150) to a predetermined configuration (see Figs. 3-4, Figs. 2A and 2C, PP [0040]: “when the shuttle 130 passes through the opening 120, the closed state of the shuttle is attained”, PP [0043]: “ramps 131a-131d on shuttle wings 132a and 132b interfere with the ramps 121a-121d on the shuttle body. It will be appreciated that, although ramps 121a-121d and 131a-132d are shown, any suitably-shaped interference feature may be provided to achieve interference such that a closed state of the shuttle is achieved when the shuttle passes through opening 120”).
Regarding claim 2, Biddle et al. further discloses the cassette (130 in Fig. 1) disposed in the cavity (120, see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the predetermined configuration is a curved shape (see Fig. 2C where 150 is curved via contact with curved surfaces 133a-b in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Biddle et al. further discloses a nozzle (128 in Fig. 1) connected to the body (110) and operatively associated with the cavity (120, they operatively connect via lumen 127).
Regarding claim 5, Biddle et al. further discloses a plunger (119 in Fig. 1) configured to move the intraocular lens through the cavity (120) and the nozzle (128, PP [0045]: “shuttle lumen 137 is aligned with the nozzle lumen 127 such that actuation of plunger 119 results in expulsion of the IOL from distal opening 129”).
Regarding claim 6, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the nozzle (128 in Fig. 1) is configured to deform the intraocular lens [to] a second predetermined configuration as the plunger (119) moves the intraocular lens (150) through the nozzle (128, PP [0045]: “nozzle 128 may provide additional folding of IOL 150 beyond what is achieved by closing shuttle 130, such that upon actuation of the plunger, the IOL is further folded by internal shape of the nozzle lumen as the IOL passes therethrough”).
Regarding claim 7, Biddle et al. further discloses the cassette (130 in Fig. 1), and wherein the cassette (130) includes an angled ramp (rounded ramp of 133c in Figs. 2A-B) at one end of the cassette (130) configured to lift the intraocular lens (150) from the cavity (120) into an opening to the nozzle (128) as the plunger (119) pushes the intraocular lens (150) into the nozzle (128, lens 150 travels over curved/angled ramp 133c to reach the nozzle).
Regarding claim 8, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the body (110 in Fig. 1) includes a first detent (PP [0041]: “The plunger may be a slidable-type plunger or a screw-type plunger”, a screw-type plunger would have a matching threaded hole in the body to rotate relative to in order to actuate, the matching threads are a detent) configured to selectively prevent the plunger (119) from moving in a distal direction (a threaded plunger 119 would be prevented from translational distal motion and would need to rotate to move axially, therefore it would be prevented from moving in a distal direction when compressed axially).
Regarding claim 9, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the body (110 in Fig. 1) includes a second detent (PP [0041]: “The plunger may be a slidable-type plunger or a screw-type plunger”, a screw-type plunger would have a matching threaded hole in the body to rotate relative to in order to actuate, another plurality of the matching threads are a second detent) configured to selectively prevent the plunger (119) from moving in a proximal direction (a threaded plunger 119 would be prevented from translational proximal motion and would need to rotate to move axially, therefore it would be prevented from moving in a proximal direction when pulled axially).
Regarding claim 16, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the projection (121a-d in Fig. 1) is configured to extend through an opening (notches between 131a-d and 132a-d in Fig. 2A) in the cassette (130) to deform the intraocular lens (150, see Figs. 2A and 2C).
Regarding claim 17, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the projection (121a-d in Fig. 1) includes a cutout (space between 121a-b and 121c-d) configured to avoid contact with an optical portion of the intraocular lens (150) during deformation of the intraocular lens (150, the space between 121a-b and 121c-d do not contact the intraocular lens).
Regarding claim 40, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the projection (121a-d in Fig. 1) contacts the intraocular lens (150, 121a-d contact the lens via 131a-d) as the projection (121a-d) deforms the intraocular lens (150) to the predetermined configuration (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 41, Biddle et al. further discloses wherein the projection (121a-d in Fig. 1) extends through an opening of the cassette (121a-d extends into an opening/notch defined by 132a-b and 131a-b in Fig. 2A) as the projection (121a-d) deforms the intraocular lens (150) to the predetermined configuration (PP [0043]: “The shuttle 130 and sidewalls 122a, 122b are sized and shaped such that the first wing 132a and the second wing 132b interfere with the first sidewall 122a and the second sidewall 122b, respectively, as the shuttle 130 passes through the shuttle reception opening 120”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the claims 10-15 filed on 3/12/2026 could either not be found or was not suggested in the prior art of record.
With respect to claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious at the effective filing date of the invention: the feature of wherein the projection is configured to be selectively moved in a direction oriented away from the cavity to reduce a portion of the projection extending into the interior of the cavity, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.
The closest prior art is Biddle et al., which discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 as described further above.
However, Biddle et al. fails to disclose wherein the projection is configured to be selectively moved, since the projection of Biddle et al. (see ramps 121a-d in Fig. 1) is not movable. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not suggest any motivation to modify the Biddle et al. disclosure to arrive at these features.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and inherits the reasons for allowance as described above.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious at the effective filing date of the invention: the feature of a cover moveably coupled to the body, wherein the cover is configured to be selectively moved between an open configuration and a closed configuration, and wherein the cover is configured to selectively couple the cassette thereto such that the cassette is disposed within the cavity when the cover is in the closed configuration, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.
The closest prior art is Biddle et al., which discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 as described further above.
However, Biddle et al. fails to disclose a cover as claimed. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not suggest any motivation to modify the Biddle et al. disclosure to arrive at these features.
Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12 and inherit the reasons for allowance as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bridget E. Rabaglia whose telephone number is (571)272-2908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/BRIDGET E. RABAGLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771