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 .
The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
Status of the Claims
Claim(s) 18-21, 25-26, and 29-30 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-17, 22-24, and 27-28 is/are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the claim warnings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim warnings of claims 19-20, 22, 24, and 27-28 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting Rejections of claims 18-29 has/have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer on 7/8/2026, which was approved on 7/8/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art, Applicant argues the amended claim language is not taught. Further, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 27 does not meet the amended claim language as the prior art does not teach a peripheral portion with an open end and an inner surface between the peripheral portion’s open end and a free and closed distal end of the of the peripheral portion. (Applicant’s Response on 7/8/2026, pages 5-6).
Annotated Figure 35(2) below shows three locations as follows.
Location #1: open end where the optic portion and peripheral portion are coupled (see also Figure 33)
Location #2: an inner surface of the peripheral portion
Location #3: free and closed end of the peripheral portion; box added to further show section where arrow points.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the groove axially anterior of the noted arrow location are moot as this location was/is not indicated as part of the closed, free end.
Location is a free end as this radially outermost end is not attached to another feature and is closed as it is solid.
The inner surface at location #2 is at a radial distance between the distances of locations #1 and #3. Further, location #2 is between locations #1 and #3 as indicated below in Figure 35(3) at the location of #2 at the arrow tip.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19, 21, and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens (US 2013/0331937 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Stevens teaches an intraocular lens (e.g. abstract), comprising:
an optic portion (e.g. Figure 33, #70; top element in Figure 35); and
a peripheral portion (e.g. Figure 33, #72; bottom element in Figure 35),
wherein an outer periphery of the optic portion has a peripheral surface (e.g. Figure 33), wherein the peripheral surface has a depression (e.g. annotated Figure 35(1) below), that is not symmetrical about an axis orthogonal to an optical axis of the optic portion (e.g. annotated Figure 35(1) below, about axis that is the dotted line shown), and wherein a radially inner portion of the peripheral portion of the intraocular lens has an inner surface (e.g. Figures 33, 35),
wherein the peripheral surface is directly adjacent to the inner surface and does not directly extend from the inner surface (e.g. Figure 33), and
wherein at least a portion of the inner surface is disposed in the depression (e.g. Figure 33),
wherein the inner surface (e.g. annotated Figure 35(2) below, label #2) is disposed between a location where the peripheral portion extends from the optic portion (e.g. annotated Figure 35(2) below, label #1; see also Figure 33, which shows the position of the optic relative to location #1, the peripheral portion extends radially outward from the optic at this location) and a free and closed distal end of the peripheral portion (e.g. annotated Figure 35(2) below, label #3; location #3 is the axially straight end where the arrow is located; a box is added for further clarity) (the inner surface at location #2 is at a radial distance between the distances of locations #1 and #3; further, location #2 is between locations #1 and #3 as indicated below in Figure 35(3) below at the location of #2 at the arrow tip) .
PNG
media_image1.png
530
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 35(1), Stevens
PNG
media_image2.png
542
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 35(2), Stevens
PNG
media_image3.png
542
919
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 35(3), Stevens
Regarding Claims 19, the depression is defined such that a portion of the peripheral surface is set radially inward relative to another portion of the peripheral surface along an anterior-to-posterior direction (e.g. Figure 33).
Regarding Claim 21, the portion of the inner surface is disposed in the depression when the intraocular lens is in an at-rest configuration (e.g. Figure 33).
Regarding Claim 25, the inner surface that is disposed in the depression is disposed axially between an anterior-most location of the optic portion and a posterior-most location of the optic portion (e.g. Figure 33).
Regarding Claim 26, the inner surface is spaced away from and around the outer periphery of the optic portion from a location where the peripheral portion extends from the optic portion (e.g. Figure 33).
Regarding Claim 29, the inner surface that is disposed in the depression has a height in an anterior-to-posterior direction that is less than a greatest height dimension of the peripheral portion (e.g. Figure 33; the inner surface height is less that the total height (greatest height) of the peripheral portion).
Regarding Claim 30, the peripheral surface comprises a plurality of depressions spaced apart around the outer periphery of the optic portion (e.g. Figure 33, # 862 in #76s; Figure 12A shows that #s 76 are spaced apart lugs).
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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2013/0331937 A1) as discussed supra and further in view of Smiley, et al (Smiley) (US 2013/0131794 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Stevens discloses the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach the intraocular lens is a fluid-filled intraocular lens, wherein the optic portion comprises an optic fluid chamber, and wherein the peripheral portion comprises at least one peripheral fluid chamber in fluid communication with the optic fluid chamber.
Smiley teaches an IOL having optic (e.g. Figure 1C, #12) and peripheral portions (e.g. Figure 1C, #s 14) and the intraocular lens is a fluid-filled intraocular lens (e.g. Figures 1A-H, [0049]), wherein the optic portion comprises an optic fluid chamber (e.g. Figure 1C, #12), and wherein the peripheral portion comprises at least one peripheral fluid chamber in fluid communication with the optic fluid chamber (e.g. Figure 1C, [0049]).
Smiley and Stevens are concerned with the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely IOLs having optic and peripheral components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevens such that the optic and haptic portions are fluid elements that communicate with one another as taught by Smiley in as it is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)). Here, the results are predictable because each claimed element performs in the same manner in the combination as it does separately. Specifically, the fluid provides a means of transferring the forces of the eye muscles to the optic portion, which results in the needed accommodation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7044. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM, MST.
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 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.
/LESLIE A LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights