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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, lines 14-15, "in a manner, unlike the tweezer mechanism" should read "in a manner unlike the tweezer mechanism".
On page 6, lines 10-11, "As best seen in FIG. 3, Each of the pair…" should read "As best seen in FIG. 3, each of the pair…"
On page 8, line 9, "to enhances removal of the contact lens" should read "to enhance removal of the contact lens".
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schrier (U.S. Patent No. 4221414).
Regarding claim 1, Schrier teaches a contact lens tool (10) (Abstract) comprising:
A handle (12) (Column 3, lines 49-52);
An applicator head (Fig. 1, elements 22, 24);
The handle (12) comprising a tail region (28) and a head region (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28; annotated figure below);
The handle (12) extending from the tail region (28) to the head region (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28);
The applicator head comprising a pair of arms (14, 16), an interior surface, and an exterior surface (Column 3, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16; annotated figure below);
Each of the pair of arms (14, 16) being terminally connected to the head region (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16);
Each of the pair of arms (14, 16) extending outward (Column 3, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16);
The interior surface being disposed perimetrically between each of the pair of arms (14, 16) (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16); and
The exterior surface being disposed perimetrically on each of the pair of arms (14, 16), opposite of the interior surface (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Schrier teaches the handle (12) and applicator head are made of soft, moldable material (Column 5, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 7, Schrier teaches the tail region being cylindrical in shape; and the head region being rectangular in shape (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28).
Regarding claim 8, Schrier teaches each of the pair of arms (14, 16) comprising a tip (18, 20); the tip (18, 20) being terminally connected to each of the pair of arms (14, 16); and the tip (18, 20) extending longitudinally outward from each of the pair of arms (14, 16) (Column 4, lines 27-30; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16, 18, 20).
Regarding claim 10, Schrier teaches a contact lens tool (10) (Abstract) comprising:
A handle (12) (Column 3, lines 49-52);
An applicator head (Fig. 1, elements 22, 24);
The handle (12) and the applicator head being made of a soft, moldable material (Column 5, lines 4-7);
The handle (12) comprising a tail region and a head region (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28; annotated figure below);
The handle (12) extending from the tail region to the head region (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28; annotated figure below);
The applicator head comprising a pair of arms (14, 16), an interior surface, and an exterior surface (Column 3, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16; annotated figure below);
Each of the pair of arms (14, 16) being terminally connected to the head region (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16);
Each of the pair of arms (14. 16) extending outward (Column 3, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16);
The interior surface being disposed perimetrically between each of the pair of arms (14, 16) (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16); and
The exterior surface being disposed perimetrically on each of the pair of arms (14, 16), opposite of the interior surface (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Schrier teaches the tail region being cylindrical in shape; and the head region being rectangular in shape (Fig. 1, elements 12, 28).
Regarding claim 13, Schrier teaches each of the pair of arms (14, 16) comprising a tip (18, 20); the tip (18, 20) being terminally connected to each of the pair of arms (14, 16); and the tip (18, 20) extending longitudinally outward from each of the pair of arms (14, 16) (Column 4, lines 27-30; Fig. 1, elements 14, 16, 18, 20).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jermyn (U.S. Patent No. 4964663).
Regarding claim 15, Jermyn teaches a contact lens tool (10) (Abstract) comprising:
A handle (20) (Fig. 4, element 20);
An applicator head (Fig. 4, element 11);
The handle (20) and the applicator head being made of rigid, homogenous, non-moldable material (Column 4, lines 26-29);
The handle (20) comprising a tail region and a head region (Fig. 4, element 11; annotated figure below);
The handle (12) extending from the tail region to the head region (Fig. 4, element 20);
The applicator head comprising a pair of arms (11, 12), an interior surface, and an exterior surface (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12; annotated figure below);
Each of the pair of arms (11, 12) being terminally connected to the head region (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12);
Each of the pair of arms (11, 12) extending outward (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12);
The interior surface being disposed perimetrically between each of the pair of arms (11, 12) (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12); and
The exterior surface being disposed perimetrically on each of the pair of arms (11, 12), opposite of the interior surface (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12). Additional details are provided in the figures below.
PNG
media_image2.png
289
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
329
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Jermyn teaches each of the pair of arms (11, 12) are positioned at an open angle with each other (Fig. 3, elements 11, 12).
Regarding claim 17, Jermyn teaches each of the pair of arms (11, 12) are positioned at an acute angle with each other (Claim 1; Fig. 3, elements 11, 12).
Regarding claim 19, Jermyn teaches each of the pair of arms (11, 12) comprises a tip (16, 17); the tip (16, 17) being terminally connected to each of the pair of arms (11, 12); and the tip (16, 17) extending longitudinally outward from each of the pair of arms (11, 12).
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.
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(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrier in view of Jermyn (US 4964663).
Regarding claim 3, Schrier fails to teach a contact lens tool made of a rigid material. Jermyn teaches a contact lens tool (10) where the handle (20) and the applicator head (11) are made of rigid, non-moldable material (Column 4, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Jermyn to facilitate the creation of a contact lens tool that uses a rigid material so as to provide relative stiffness to the arms as taught by Jermyn (Column 4, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 4, Schrier teaches each of the pair of arms (14, 16) are positioned at an open angle with each other (Fig. 1, elements 14, 16).
Regarding claim 5, Schrier teaches each of the pair of arms (14, 16) are positioned opposite to each other and perpendicular to the handle (12) (Fig. 1, elements 12, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 6, Schrier fails to teach a continuous, rectangular shape. Jermyn teaches a contact lens device with the tail region and the head region being a continuous, rectangular shape (Fig. 3, element 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Jermyn to facilitate the creation of a rectangular handle that is easier to manipulate as taught by Jermyn (Column 4, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 9, Schrier fails to teach rounded tips. Jermyn teaches a contact lens tool (10) with a tip (16, 17) comprising rounded edges (Column 4, lines 21-25; Fig. 3, elements 16, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Jermyn to facilitate the creation of tips with rounded edges on which to mount holding members as taught by Jermyn (Column 4, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 11, Schrier fails to teach a continuous, rectangular shape. Jermyn teaches a contact lens device with the tail region and the head region being a continuous, rectangular shape (Fig. 3, element 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Jermyn to facilitate the creation of a rectangular handle that is easier to manipulate as taught by Jermyn (Column 4, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 14, Schrier fails to teach rounded tips. Jermyn teaches a contact lens tool (10) with a tip (16, 17) comprising rounded edges (Column 4, lines 21-25; Fig. 3, elements 16, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Jermyn to facilitate the creation of tips with rounded edges on which to mount holding members as taught by Jermyn (Column 4, lines 21-25).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jermyn in view of Galliker et al (WO 2014060264).
Regarding claim 18, Jermyn fails to teach arms that are orthogonal. Galliker et al teaches a contact lens device where each of the pair of arms (5b) are positioned orthogonally to each other (Page 5, paragraph 6; Fig. 6, element 5b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Galliker et al to facilitate the creation of orthogonal arms to create the largest possible bearing surface as taught by Galliker et al (Page 5, paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jermyn in view of Schrier (US 4221414).
Regarding claim 20, Jermyn fails to teach tips with beveled edges. Schrier teaches a contact lens device where the tip (18, 20) comprises beveled edges (Column 4, lines 39-42; Fig. 1, elements 18, 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Schrier to facilitate the creation of tips with beveled edges that allow the contact lens to be easily removed from the eye as taught by Schrier (Column 4, lines 42-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654