Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant has amended claim a to recite “that the second central area has orthogonal projections in an optical axis of the optical portion that are not completely overlapped with each other, or wherein an outer side edge of the first central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the least one first annular area, or, an outer side edge of the second central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the at least one second annular area, wherein the first central area, the at least one first annular area, the second central area, and the at least one second annular area all have smooth surfaces.” In response to Applicant’s amendment Examiner has added reference Simpson (US Pub No.: 2006/0116764).
With respect to the argument on the last page of Holmstrom, applicant argues that, as Holmstrom teaches saw tooth shaped ridges, it is impossible for there to be a smooth surface. Examiner disagrees. As per the wording of the new amendment, it is stated that “the first central area, the at least one first annular area, the second central area, and the at least one second annular area all have smooth surfaces.” This limitation does not require that said areas are only comprised of smooth surfaces. As long as one surface can be defined as smooth in each of the listed areas, this limitation will be satisfied. As said areas are now taught by Simpson (US Pub No.: 2006/0116764) in response to other amendments, Holmstrom is not relied upon here. However, as Simpson also does teach pointed segments, examiner notes that said segments are not explicitly ruled out by the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmstrom (US Pub No.: 2024/0307170) in view of Holmstrom 2 (US Pub No.: 2020/0209649) and Simpson (US Pub No.: 2006/0116764).
Regarding claim 1, Holmstrom (US Pub No.: 2024/0307170) discloses an intraocular lens (in the abstract), comprising an optical portion (being the lens body 56 disclosed in [0138], shown in figure 5b, where the lens comprises sides 54 and 55 as per [0138]), wherein a first surface of the optical portion comprises a first central area and at least one first annular area (the central area 51 with annular areas 52 and 53 shown in figure 5a), and the first central area and the at least one first annular area have different focal powers (the lens is disclosed as being multifocal in the abstract [0138] with different powers in different lens orders in [0142]-[0143]); a second surface of the optical portion (being the second portion part 55 in figure 5b) comprises a second central area and at least one second annular area (as part 54 has a central and annular area, part 55 also has areas that correspond to central area 51 and annular areas 52 and 53), the second central area and the at least one second annular area have different focal powers (as the lens is a multifocal lens with multiple orders in [0142], different focal powers are present in the lens of Holmstrom), and the first central area and the second central area are not completely projected onto each other (shown in figure 5b’s configuration with a light path shown in figures 1 and 3 showing a refraction of light where [0122] details a diffraction that are detailed with respect to figure 5a’s lens in [0138]), so that light enters into the optical portion from the first surface, and is refracted from the second surface, and converged to at least three different positions on an optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figure 1 and 3. As Holmstrom discloses three or more focal points in [0025]-[0027], a converging of a light to three different positions occurs to allow for said focal points).
Examiner notes that the diffraction about at least three positions shown in figures 1 and 3 are labeled as prior art. Here, Holmstrom 2 (US Pub No.: 2020/0209649) is also relied upon to teach a light that enters into the optical portion from the first surface, and is refracted from the second surface, and converged to at least three different positions on an optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the focal points illustrated in figure 1 of Holmstrom 2 into Holmstrom to provide an illustration of how Holmstrom provides three or more focal points (Shown in [0025]-[0027] of Holmstrom).
From here, Holmstrom does not teach that the second central area has orthogonal projections in an optical axis of the optical portion that are not completely overlapped with each other, or wherein an outer side edge of the first central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the least one first annular area, or, an outer side edge of the second central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the at least one second annular area, wherein the first central area, the at least one first annular area, the second central area, and the at least one second annular area all have smooth surfaces.
Instead, Simpson (US Pub No.: 2006/0116764) teaches that the second central area has orthogonal projections in an optical axis of the optical portion that are not completely overlapped with each other (shown in figure 2A, where projecting parts 44 extend orthogonally from a second central area that is not along part 48 that is about a first central area. Orthogonal portions 44 do not completely overlap with each other in figure 2A), wherein an outer side edge of the first central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the least one first annular area, or, an outer side edge of the second central area has a same height as an inner side edge of the at least one second annular area (heights may be substantially uniform as per [0008]. Additionally, as shown in figure 2A, the height at the lowermost end of figure 2A is equivalent to the height at sections 45 that are a first and second annular area), wherein the first central area, the at least one first annular area, the second central area, and the at least one second annular area all have smooth surfaces (each area of the device of figure 2A has at least one smooth surface. Areas labeled below in annotated figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a lens with orthogonal projections like the ones of Simpson into Holmstrom for the purpose of providing diffractive zones (defined in [0064]) that can generate a far and near focus on the same lens surface (as per the abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 1, wherein Holmstrom discloses that the light from a first-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first central area, and is refracted from the second central area, and converged to a first position on the optical axis of the optical portion; if the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area, the light from a second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the at least one first annular area, and is refracted from the second central area, and converged to a second position on the optical axis of the optical portion; if the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area, the light from the second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first central area, and is refracted from the at least one second annular area, and converged to the second position on the optical axis of the optical portion; a distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens is different from a distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens (as Holmstrom discloses multiple focal areas, with multiple portions in areas like [0175]-[0179], a light passing through multiple central areas and annular areas to provide multiple focal points are present, as shown in prior art figures 1 and 3 of Holmstrom as well as figure 1 of Holmstrom 2).
Regarding claim 3, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 2, wherein Holmstrom discloses the distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens is greater than the distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens (as the device of Holmstrom provides for vision over multiple focal points, as per [0010] and [0118], a greater distance from a first-distance (far vision) object with respect to a second-distance object (either an intermediate or near vision ranged object) is present).
Regarding claim 4, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 2, wherein Holmstrom discloses the light from a third-distance object enters into the optical portion from the at least one first annular area, and is refracted from the at least one second annular area, converged to a third position on the optical axis of the optical portion, and a distance from the third-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens is different from both the distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens and the distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens (with the third distance object being either an intermediate of near distance compared to the far-distance object of the far distance vision provided by Holmstrom, Holmstrom does teach a third-distance object. As the focal powers are provided by different regions of the lens of Holmstrom).
Regarding claim 5, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 4, wherein Holmstrom discloses the distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens is greater than the distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens, and the distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens is greater than the distance from the third-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens (as the device of Holmstrom provides for vision over multiple focal points, as per [0010] and [0118], a greater distance from a first-distance (far vision) object with respect to a second-distance object (an intermediate vision ranged object) is present. From here, the third distance object corresponds to a near vision focal point in [0010] and [0118]).
Regarding claim 6, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 4, wherein Holmstrom discloses a distance from the second position to the center of the intraocular lens is less than a distance from the first position to the center of the intraocular lens (as the second position is an intermediate range and the first position is a far range, the distance between the second position is smaller than the first position), and a distance from the third position to the center of the intraocular lens is less than a distance from the second position to the center of the intraocular lens (as the third position corresponds to a near vision, the third position is less than the second position distance).
Regarding claim 7, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 1, wherein Holmstrom discloses the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area (as the central areas on parts 54 and 55 have different surface topography in figure 5b, the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area), the first surface of the optical portion comprises at least two first annular areas (shown in figure 5a), the first annular area adjacent to the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (shown in figure 5a), and each of the at least two first annular areas has different focal powers (as multiple focal points are present in [0117] with annular zones shown in figure 5a, with peripheral lens portions providing multifocal diffraction grating to provide different distance visions to the lens, as per [0138]); or, the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (as the central areas on parts 54 and 55 have different surface topography in figure 5b, the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area), the second surface of the optical portion comprises at least two second annular areas (shown in figure 5a), the second annular area adjacent to the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area (implied in figure 5b as the second annular area does not match up to the first central area in said figure), and each of the at least two second annular areas has different focal powers (as multiple focal points are present in [0117] with annular zones shown in figure 5a, with peripheral lens portions providing multifocal diffraction grating to provide different distance visions to the lens, as per [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 7, wherein the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area (as the central areas on parts 54 and 55 have different surface topography in figure 5b, the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area), the first surface of the optical portion comprises a proximal first annular area and a far first annular area (shown in figure 5a), and the proximal first annular area is not completely projected onto the second central area (shown in figures 5a-5b); the light from a first-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first central area (light enters through the lens in figure 5b from the first optical portion), and is refracted from the second central area (shown in figures 1 and 3 of Holmstrom), and converged to a first position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3 of Holmstrom); the light from a second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the proximal first annular area, and is refracted from the second central area, and converged to a second position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3 of Holmstrom); the light from a third-distance object enters into the optical portion from the proximal first annular area, and is refracted from the second annular area, and converged to a third position on the optical axis of the optical portion (as multiple focal points are disclosed in [0010] and [0118], a third distance object is implied with a third position present to define said third vision focal point); the light from the second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the far first annular area, and is refracted from the second annular area, and converged to the second position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3 and implied with the presence of multiple focal points in [0118] with the multiple annular areas in figure 5a); a distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens, a distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens and a distance from the third-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens are all different (present in figures 1 and 3. While said figures are labeled as prior art, as a near, intermediate, and far distance are disclosed in [0010] and [0118] also three unique distances between a first, second, and third distance object).
Examiner notes that the diffraction about at least three positions shown in figures 1 and 3 are labeled as prior art. Here, Holmstrom 2 (US Pub No.: 2020/0209649) is also relied upon to teach a light that enters into the optical portion from the first surface, and is refracted from the second surface, and converged to at least three different positions on an optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the focal points illustrated in figure 1 of Holmstrom 2 into Holmstrom to provide an illustration of how Holmstrom provides three or more focal points (Shown in [0025]-[0027] of Holmstrom).
Regarding claim 9, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 7, wherein the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (as the central areas on parts 54 and 55 have different surface topography in figure 5b, the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area), the second surface of the optical portion comprises a proximal second annular area and a far second annular area (shown in figure 5a), and the proximal second annular area is not completely projected onto the first central area (shown in figures 5a-5b); the light from a first-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first central area, and is refracted from the second central area (light enters through the lens in figure 5b from the first optical portion), and converged to a first position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3, with a first position corresponding to one of the focal points disclosed in [0010] and [0118]); the light from a second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first central area, and is refracted from the proximal second annular area, and converged to a second position on the optical axis of the optical portion (as multiple focal points are disclosed in [0010] and [0118], a third distance object is implied with a third position present to define said third vision focal point); the light from a third-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first annular area, and is refracted from the proximal second annular area, and converged to a third position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3 and implied with the presence of multiple focal points in [0118] with the multiple annular areas in figure 5a. as a far, intermediate, and near visions are disclosed, a third position is provided for in Holmstrom. Said third position corresponds to a third-distance object); the light from the second-distance object enters into the optical portion from the first annular area, and is refracted from the far second annular area, and converged to the second position on the optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figures 1 and 3 and implied with the presence of multiple focal points in [0118] with the multiple annular areas in figure 5a); a distance from the first-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens, a distance from the second-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens and a distance from the third-distance object to the center of the intraocular lens are all different (present in figures 1 and 3. While said figures are labeled as prior art, as a near, intermediate, and far distance are disclosed in [0010] and [0118] also three unique distances between a first, second, and third distance object).
Examiner notes that the diffraction about at least three positions shown in figures 1 and 3 are labeled as prior art. Here, Holmstrom 2 (US Pub No.: 2020/0209649) is also relied upon to teach a light that enters into the optical portion from the first surface, and is refracted from the second surface, and converged to at least three different positions on an optical axis of the optical portion (shown in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the focal points illustrated in figure 1 of Holmstrom 2 into Holmstrom to provide an illustration of how Holmstrom provides three or more focal points (Shown in [0025]-[0027] of Holmstrom).
Regarding claim 18, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 1, wherein a focal power of the at least one first annular area from an outer side to an inner side gradually increases, or, a focal power of the at least one second annular area from an outer side to an inner side gradually increases (as Holmstrom teaches a near, intermediate, and far visions in [0010] and [0118], a gradual increase or decrease in optical power is present. Power details in [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to claim 1, wherein the first central area is spherical or aspherical, the at least one first annular area is spherical or aspherical, the second central area is spherical or aspherical, and the at least one second annular area is spherical or aspherical (spherical and aspherical surface details in [0139]).
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmstrom (US Pub No.: 2024/0307170) in view of Holmstrom 2 (US Pub No.: 2020/0209649) and Simpson (US Pub No.: 2006/0116764) in further view of Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640).
Regarding claim 10, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 1. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 11, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 2. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 12, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 3. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 13, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 4. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 14, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 5. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 15, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 6. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 16, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 7. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Regarding claim 17, Holmstrom in view of Holmstrom 2 and Simpson teach the intraocular lens according to any one of claim 8. However, Holmstrom does not teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area.
Instead, Nguyen (US Patent No.: 7,198,640) does teach wherein a radial size of the first central area is less than a radial size of the second central area, so that the second central area is not completely projected onto the first central area; or, a radial size of the first central area is greater than a radial size of the second central area, so that the first central area is not completely projected onto the second central area (in column 4 lines 44-58 and column 18 lines 45-56, an anterior viewing element’s optic is 3mmm less than a posterior optic, where the anterior optic is further detailed in column 11 lines 23-42. As both optic surfaces have a different diameter, the first central area and second central area do not have the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the posterior and anterior optic details with their corresponding structures presented in Nguyen into the combination involving Holmstrom for the purpose of providing a lens system that can alter its refractive power in response to changes in tension of the ciliary muscle of the eye, disclosed in column 1 lines 29-32.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weeber (US Pub No.: 2019/0004221) considered for an intraocular lens with multiple zones in figures 2A-2B with a light refraction shown in figures 1A-1B. Hussain (US Pub No.: 2020/0038172) discloses an intraocular lens with three foci in figure 6A.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights