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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on February 9, 2023 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification, page 15, last 2 lines, contain non-English text. Examiner suggests deleting such text.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests -- and the first convex lens --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a front concave surface that matches a shape of an external surface of a patient’s eye” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “matches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, matching is a measure of degree. Also, not all patients have the same corneal surface. As such, what is, or is not included in matching is not an objective determination. Does match mean identical in curvature? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art has a concave surface, such surface necessarily matches, to some degree, the convex surface of the cornea.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “convex surface on the proximal end…that matches the rear concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “matches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, matching is a measure of degree. Does the match mean identical in curvature? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the gonio surface is convex, such surface will be considered to match a concave surface.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the bi-concave contact lens is made of an optical material selected from the group consisting of a non-deformable…material and a deformable…material” which is unclear if claim 2 further limits claim 1. Specifically, claim 2 recites the only two possible options: deformable or non-deformable, thus any biconcave lens of claim 1 is necessarily one of those options.
Additionally, deformable/non-deformable are relative terms that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). How deformable is deformable? Deformability is often measured as an elastic modulus1, however Applicant’s claims/specification do not provide an objective measure of what constitutes a deformable or non-deformable material.
Examiner will understand claim 2 to implicitly be met by any biconcave lens of the prior art.
Claims 4, 6-19 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the bi-concave lens is disposable” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes being disposable is entirely subjective as to what structure and/or materials constitute something being disposable. All things can be disposed of/thrown away. Thus what is or is not disposable is unclear. Examiner will understand the claim such that art meeting claim 1 is necessarily disposable.
As to claims 4, 5, the claims recite “for tilting an incident beam closer to an area of interest” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, closer relative to when? Without the gonio lens? How close is closer? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand such function is implicit to the contact lens and gonio lens being made of different materials.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “in the direction opposite to the rear concave surface” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Additionally, such direction is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What direction is the rear concave surface such that there exists a direction opposite to such concave surface? The concave surface extends in 3D space and thus is in all directions. Therefore, what would be a direction opposite to all directions? Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches the conical cup-shape, such features are necessarily met.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “in the direction opposite to the rear concave surface” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Additionally, such direction is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What direction is the rear concave surface such that there exists a direction opposite to such concave surface? The concave surface extends in 3D space and thus is in all directions. Therefore, what would be a direction opposite to all directions? Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches the conical cup-shape, such features are necessarily met.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “matching the cylindrical shape of the optical gonio lens” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “matching” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, matching is a measure of degree. Does the match mean identical in curvature? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches a cup-shaped configuration, such limitations will be considered met.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “in case of” which is unclear if such limitations following are positively recite - i.e. are, or are not optional (MPEP 2173.05(h)). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will consider art teaching claim 6 and a non-multiple facet shape to also necessarily meet claim 13 since claim 13 only further limits the multiple facet shape.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “in a direction opposite to the front concave surface” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Additionally, such direction is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What direction is the front concave surface such that there exists a direction opposite to such concave surface? The concave surface extends in 3D space and thus is in all directions. Therefore, what would be a direction opposite to all directions? Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches the conical cup-shape, such features are necessarily met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Volk (US 5,523,810).
As to claim 1, Volk teaches an ophthalmic illumination/observation device (Volk Fig. 1; Fig. 3; Fig. 6; Fig. 7) comprising
a biconcave contact lens (Volk Fig. 1 - 12; Fig. 3 - 24”; Fig. 6 - 212, 224; Fig. 7 - 300; col. 4:7-10; col. 7:17-20; col. 9:30-35; col. 10:40-45) having on one side a front concave surface that matches a shape of an external surface of a patient's eye cornea onto which the front concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens is placed during an ophthalmic procedure (Volk Fig. 3 - 28; Fig. 6 - 228; Fig. 7 - 306), and a rear concave surface on a side of the bi-concave contact lens opposite to said one side (Volk Fig. 3 - 30”; Fig. 6 - 230; Fig. 7 - 308); and
an optical gonio lens (Volk Fig. 3 - 26”, 14; Fig. 6 - 226, 214; Fig. 7 - 304) having a distal end and a proximal end with a convex surface on the proximal end (Volk Fig. 3 - 32”; Fig. 6 - 232; Fig. 7 - 310) that during the ophthalmic procedure is placed onto the rear concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens and that matches the rear concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens (Volk Fig. 3 - 32”; Fig. 6 - 232; Fig. 7 - 310).
As to claim 2, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Volk further teaches the biconcave material is made of an optical material selected from the group consisting of a non-deformable transparent optical material and a deformable transparent optical material (Volk col. 1:60-67; col. 2:1-11; col. 4:49-60).
As to claim 3, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Volk further teaches the biconcave contact lens is disposable (Volk Figs. 3, 6, 7; col. 4:49-60).
As to claim 4, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Volk further teaches the biconcave contact lens and the optical gonio lens are made from optical materials of different refractive indices and different optical dispersion for tilting an incident beam closer to an area of interest (Volk Figs. 3, 6, 7; col. 5:14-20; col. 6:56-65).
As to claim 5, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Volk further teaches the biconcave contact lens and the optical gonio lens are made from optical materials of different refractive indices and different optical dispersion for tilting an incident beam closer to an area of interest (Volk Figs. 3, 6, 7; col. 5:14-20; col. 6:56-65).
As to claim 6, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Volk further teaches the optical gonio lens comprises said proximal end (Volk Fig. 1 - 32; Fig. 3 - 32”; Fig. 6 - 232; Fig. 7 - 310), a distal end (Volk Fig. 1 - 38; Fig. 3 - 38; Fig. 6 - 238; Fig. 7 - 309) on a side opposite to the proximal end, a rear end face on the distal end (Volk Fig. 1 - 38; Fig. 3 - 38; Fig. 6 - 238; Fig. 7 - 309), a front end face on the proximal end (Volk Fig. 1 - 32; Fig. 3 - 32”; Fig. 6 - 232; Fig. 7 - 310), and an intermediate portion between the proximal end and the distal end (Volk Fig. 1 - 16), wherein the intermediate portion has a shape selected from the group consisting of a cylindrical shape, conical shape, a conical multiple-facet shape, a cylindrical truncated shape, and a combination of the above (Volk Fig. 1 - 16, 18, 20, 40; col. 4:10-15) wherein said intermediate portion has a symmetry, an axis of symmetry, and a first longitudinal axis that coincides with the axis of symmetry (Volk Fig. 1 - 16, 18, 20, 40; col. 4:10-15).
As to claim 8, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Volk further teaches the convex surface on the proximal end of the optical gonio lens comprises a first convex optical lens (Volk Fig. 3 - 26”; Fig. 6 - 226; Fig. 7 - 304).
As to claim 10, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Volk further teaches the bi-concave contact lens has a conical cup-shaped configuration with an inner surface defined by said rear concave surface (Volk Fig. 7 - 308) and an inner conical extension diverging in the direction opposite to the rear concave surface and serving to limit an angle of inclination of the optical gonio lens relative the bi-concave contact lens during the ophthalmic procedure (Volk Fig. 7 - lens (302) having conical extension of surface (308) which necessarily limits lens (309) as seen).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Volk further teaches the bi-concave contact lens has a conical cup-shaped configuration with an inner surface defined by said rear concave surface (Volk Fig. 7 - 308) and an inner surface extending in the direction opposite to the rear surface and matching the cylindrical shape of the optical gonio lens (Volk Fig. 7 - lens (302) having conical extension of surface (308) which matches cylindrical shape of gonio lens (310)).
As to claim 13, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Volk further teaches the conical shape (Volk Fig. 1 - 16, 18, 20, 40; col. 4:10-15).
As to claim 18, Volk teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Volk further teaches the rear end face on the distal end of the optical gonio lens has a diameter and a flange that for convenience of holding is larger than the diameter of the distal end of the optical gonio lens (Volk Fig. 1 - 40).
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 2004/0036839 - herein Fischer).
As to claim 1, Fischer teaches an ophthalmic illumination/observation device (Fischer Figs. 1-12) comprising
a biconcave contact lens (Fischer Fig. 2 - 3; Fig. 3 - 3.1; para. [0053], [0055], [0060], [0013], [0014] - as per para. [0014] - attachment body (contact lens, 3. 3.1) contact surface (6.2, 6.4) having the same shape as the base body (gonio, 2, 2.1) contact surface (6.1, 6.3); as per para [0013] the gonio contact surface (6.1, 6.3) can be convex or concave, thus the contact lens (3, 3.1) being biconcave (7, 6.2, 6.4)) having on one side a front concave surface that matches a shape of an external surface of a patient's eye cornea onto which the front concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens is placed during an ophthalmic procedure (Fischer Fig. 2; Fig. 3 - 7; para. [0057])), and a rear concave surface on a side of the bi-concave contact lens opposite to said one side (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.2; Fig. 3 - 6.4; para. [0013], [0014], [0053], [0055], [0060])); and
an optical gonio lens (Fischer Fig. 2 - 2; Fig. 3 - 2.1) having a distal end (Fischer Fig. 2 - 5) and a proximal end with a convex surface on the proximal end (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.1; Fig. 3 - 6.3; para. [0013]) that during the ophthalmic procedure is placed onto the rear concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens and that matches the rear concave surface of the bi-concave contact lens (Fischer Fig. 2; Fig. 3; para. [0014], [0057]).
As to claim 2, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fischer further teaches the biconcave material is made of an optical material selected from the group consisting of a non-deformable transparent optical material and a deformable transparent optical material (Fischer para. [0055]).
As to claim 3, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Fischer further teaches the biconcave lens is disposable (Fischer para. [0009]).
As to claim 4, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Fischer further teaches the biconcave contact lens and the optical gonio lens are made from optical materials of different refractive indices and different optical dispersion for tilting an incident beam closer to an area of interest (Fischer para. [0055]; Fig. 11 - 20; para. [0078]-[0079]).
As to claim 5, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Fischer further teaches the biconcave contact lens and the optical gonio lens are made from optical materials of different refractive indices and different optical dispersion for tilting an incident beam closer to an area of interest (Fischer para. [0055]; Fig. 11 - 20; para. [0078]-[0079]).
As to claim 6, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Fischer further teaches the optical gonio lens comprises said proximal end (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.1; Fig. 3 - 6.3), a distal end (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5; Fig. 2 - 5) on a side opposite to the proximal end, a rear end face on the distal end (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5; Fig. 2 - 5), a front end face on the proximal end (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.1; Fig. 3 - 6.3), and an intermediate portion between the proximal end and the distal end (Fischer Fig. 2 - 2; Fig. 3 - 2.1), wherein the intermediate portion has a shape selected from the group consisting of a cylindrical shape, conical shape, a conical multiple-facet shape, a cylindrical truncated shape, and a combination of the above (Fischer Fig. 2 - 2; Fi. 3 - 2.1; para. [0020]) wherein said intermediate portion has a symmetry, an axis of symmetry, and a first longitudinal axis that coincides with the axis of symmetry (Fischer Fig. 2 - 4; para. [0020]).
As to claim 7, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Fischer further teaches the rear end face is flat (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5).
As to claim 8, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Fischer further teaches the convex surface on the proximal end of the optical gonio lens comprises a first convex optical lens (Fischer para. [0013]-[0014] - contact surface (6.1, 6.3) can be convex, and thus necessarily a convex lens).
As to claim 10, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Fischer further teaches the bi-concave contact lens has a conical cup-shaped configuration with an inner surface defined by said rear concave surface (Fischer Fig. 3 - 6.4; para. [0020]) and an inner conical extension diverging in the direction opposite to the rear concave surface and serving to limit an angle of inclination of the optical gonio lens relative the biconcave contact lens during the ophthalmic procedure (Fischer Fig. 3 - 8; para. [0020]).
As to claim 11, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Fischer further teaches the biconcave contact lens has a conical cup-shaped configuration with an inner surface defined by said rear concave surface (Fischer Fig. 3 - 6.4; para. [0020]) and an inner surface extending in the direction opposite to the rear surface and matching the cylindrical shape of the optical gonio lens (Fischer Fig. 3 - 8; para. [0020]).
As to claim 13, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Fischer further teaches in case of said conical multiple-facet shape, the optical gonio lens diverges in a direction opposite to the front concave surface and has reflective mirrors on at least part of said multiple facet shape (Fischer Fig. 11 - 19.1; para. [0077]).
As to claim 14, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Fischer further teaches the a bi-concave contact lens has a second longitudinal axis that during the ophthalmic procedure coincides with an optical axis of a patient's eye (Fischer Fig. 1 - 4; Fig. 11 - 4), the first longitudinal axis may coincide with the second optical axis or be inclined relative to the second longitudinal axis during the ophthalmic procedure (Fischer Fig. 11 - 4), and wherein the rear end face of the optical gonio lens is perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5, 4).
As to claim 15, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Fischer further teaches the a bi-concave contact lens has a second longitudinal axis that during the ophthalmic procedure coincides with an optical axis of a patient's eye (Fischer Fig. 1 - 4; Fig. 11 - 4), the first longitudinal axis may coincide with the second optical axis or be inclined relative to the second longitudinal axis during the ophthalmic procedure (Fischer Fig. 11 - 4), and wherein the rear end face of the optical gonio lens is inclined relative to the first longitudinal axis (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5, 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rol (US 4,598,984).
As to claim 9, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, but doesn’t specify a first concave optical lens on the rear end face. In the same field of endeavor Rol teaches providing a concave lens on a gonio lens rear face (Rol Fig. 2d - 35; col. 6:18-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a concave lens at the rear end face since, as taught by Rol, such lenses are well known in the art as compensating elements to cancel eye astigmatism (Rol col. 2:50-55).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shields et al. (US 4,966,452 - Shields).
As to claim 12, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, but doesn’t specify the rear concave surface of the biconcave contact lens has a central light-impermeable portion. In the same field of endeavor Shields teaches providing central light-impermeable portions on concave contact lens surfaces (Shields Fig. 2 - 32; col. 3:10-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such light-impermeable (opaque) portions since, as taught by Shields, such opaque portions provide stray light blocking (Shields Fig. 2 - 32; col. 3:10-17).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claims 6, 7 above, and further in view of Ramos-Caldera (US 4,134,647).
As to claims 18, 19, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 6, 7, and Fischer further teaches the rear end face on the distal end of the optical gonio lens has a diameter (Fischer Fig. 1 - 5), but doesn’t specify a flange that for convenience of holding is larger than the diameter of the distal end of the optical gonio lens.
In the same field of endeavor Ramos-Caldera teaches a gonio lens with distal end having flange with greater diameter (Ramos-Caldera Fig. 1 - 13; col. 2:25-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a flange since, as taught by Ramos-Caldera, such flanges are well known in the art for the purpose of facilitating handling (Ramos-Caldera col. 2:25-28).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Faberov (US 2021/0030271).
As to claim 16, Fischer teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 6, and Fischer further teaches a convex first lens on the front face (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.1; Fig. 3 - 6.3; para. [0013] - contact surface (6.1, 6.3) can be convex or concave, and thus a convex lens), wherein the front end face has a first diameter (Fischer Fig. 2 - 6.1; Fig. 3 - 6.3).
Fischer does not specify the first convex lens has a diameter less than the diameter of the front end face.
In the same field of endeavor Faberov teaches a gonio lens with a front end face (Faberov Fig. 1A - 26, 30; Fig. 4 - 34, 30; Fig. 6A - 26a) with a front end lens (Faberov Fig. 1A - 34), where the diameter of the lens is less than the diameter of the front end face (Faberov Fig. 1A - 34, 30, P2; Fig. 4 - 34, 30; Fig. 6A - 40a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first lens with a diameter less than the front end face diameter since such features allow for creating a rim/shoulder to support the gonio lens and contact lens (Faberov Fig. 1A; Fig. 6A; para. [0036], [0039]).
Additionally, such diameter features represents a scaling of the convex lens of Fischer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the convex lens diameter less than the front end face, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
As to claim 17, Fischer in view of Faberov teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 16, and Faberov further teaches a second convex lens on the rear end face (Faberov Fig. 1 - 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a second convex lens since, as taught by Faberov, such lenses allow for intraocular observation (Faberov para. [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pentico et al. (US 11,717,159; 2021/0045643); Denner et al. (US 9,526,428; 2015/0157212; DE 10-2012-009144); Graham et al. (US 7,766,480); Lin (US 7,478,910); Fischer et al. (US 7,357,504); Vijfvinkel et al. (US 6,120,147); Wise (US 4,750,829); Mordaunt (US 2005/0284774) are cited as additional examples of ophthalmic illumination/observation devices with contact lenes and gonio lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 19, 2025
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_modulus