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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dudee (US Pub No.: 2020/0237502).
Regarding claim 1, Dudee (US Pub No.: 2020/0237502) discloses an intraocular support apparatus (intraocular lens in the abstract with stanchions and base details also in the abstract) comprising: a base platform (the base ends part 60 in [0078]) and modular extensions (being the stanchions such as parts 28 and 23 in [0076]-[0078]. As the haptics are attached to part 116b, a modular attachment is present).
Regarding claim 2, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a base platform (in the abstract) wherein in it involves a stalk with 3 components: Insertion arms (the stanchions 28b and 32b in figure 9. Said stanchions are 42a and 60a in figure 10), a stabilizer (parts 122a, 124a, 126a, and 128a in figure 10), and a modular junction (part 120a, defined as a collar in [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 2, further comprising insertion arms wherein they are arched allowing increased scleral entry without perforation of the outer scleral wall (the arms in figure 9 and 10 are depicted as being arched).
Regarding claim 5, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a stabilizer wherein it rests in the sulcus on the ciliary body promoting stability (as per [0104]. The base ends of parts 42 and 60 are in a supraciliary space).
Regarding claim 6, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a stabilizer wherein it rests in the sulcus on the ciliary body providing accommodation (in [0117], the haptic design is in the ciliary sulcus in [0117]).
Regarding claim 7, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a modular junction wherein it provides attachment of extensions (shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising extensions wherein there are varied shapes, styles, and functions (in figure 5, a plurality of stanchion members with different shapes are depicted, with said stanchions defined in [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, Dudee disclose a method of attaching the apparatus of claim 3 intraocularly to the globe wherein the arched insertion arms enter the internal scleral wall (attachment to the scleral wall with the extensions in figure 1 and 5), traverse in a curved fashion allowing greater tissue penetration, and avoid perforation of the outer scleral wall (shown in figure 5, [0022], [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Dudee disclose a method of stabilizing the apparatus of claim 6 intraocularly wherein the insertion arms and stabilizer prevent movement along a dimensional axis (while a movement along one dimensional axis is disclosed in [0118], a prevention of a rotation is disclosed in [0139], where said rotation is a movement along a dimensional axis).
Regarding claim 12, Dudee disclose a method of achieving accommodation wherein stabilizers of claim 6 that rest in the sulcus on the ciliary body amplify and transmit accommodative force to an intraocular lens (the accommodative force being the movement along an axis in [0118] and [0123]).
Regarding claim 13, Dudee disclose a method of attaching modular extensions of claim 7 wherein extensions of varied functions attach to the base at a modular junction (as multiple extensions that attach to different portions of the eye in figure 5, extensions with multiple functions are present in Dudee).
Regarding claim 14, Dudee disclose a method of utilizing extensions of claim 8 wherein they are varied in but not limited to size, shape, materials, and functions (the plurality of stanchions shown in figure 5 have varied shapes and sizes).
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) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudee (US Pub No.: 2020/0237502) in view of Rombach (US Pub No.: 2010/0106245).
Regarding claim 4, Dudee discloses the intraocular support apparatus of claim 3. However, Dudee does not teach a further comprising insertion arms wherein there are barb protrusions supporting retention in tissue.
Instead, Rombach (US Pub No.: 2010/0106245) teaches wherein there are barb protrusions supporting retention in tissue (in [0042], “barbs or other mechanical adaptions which ensure firm positioning and connection of the haptics to the sulcus). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said barbs onto the haptics as presented in Rombach to allow for the extensions of Dudee to be firmly positioned in the sulcus of the eye of the patient, as disclosed in [0042].
Regarding claim 10, Dudee discloses a method of attaching the apparatus of claim 4 intraocularly to the globe (via the stanchions such as parts 28 and 23 in [0076]-[0078]). However, Dudee does not teach a further comprising barb protrusions on the arched arms that prevent retraction.
Instead, Rombach (US Pub No.: 2010/0106245) teaches barb protrusions on the arched arms that prevent retraction (in [0042], “barbs or other mechanical adaptions which ensure firm positioning and connection of the haptics to the sulcus). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said barbs onto the haptics as presented in Rombach to allow for the extensions of Dudee to be firmly positioned in the sulcus of the eye of the patient, as disclosed in [0042].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cumming (US Pub No.: 2001/0016771) disclosed for the intraocular lens haptics with unique designs disclosed in figures 66-67. Ichikawa (US Pub No.: 2015/0305856) considered for an intraocular lens with branching haptics 3 and 3’ in figure 1.
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
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774