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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/18/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 8-20 have been withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-7 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esch et al. (2007/0088433) “Esch” in view of Hong et al. (2012/0259411) “Hong” and claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esch et al. (2007/0088433) “Esch” in view of Hong et al. (2012/0259411) “Hong” further in view of Ho et al. (2009/0076602)” “Ho” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esch et al. (2007/0088433) “Esch” in view of Hong et al. (2012/0259411) “Hong” further in view of Isaacson et al. (5152788) “Isaacson”.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 6, Esch discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) 20 (abstract and Figs. 3A-3B), comprising: a lens body 21 having a monolithic anterior lens element 23 (par. 0049) and a monolithic posterior lens element 27 (par. 0049); and one or more haptics 22 coupled to the lens body (as shown in Fig. 3B) and an optical fluid 38 filled in a cavity 35 formed between the monolithic anterior lens 23 element and the monolithic posterior lens 27 element (par. 0055 and Fig. 3B discloses a cavity 35 located between anterior and posterior lens 23/27 filled with fluid 38).
Esch is silent regarding an anterior nanostructure assembly formed thereon and posterior nanostructure assembly formed thereon; wherein the monolithic anterior lens element and the monolithic posterior lens element are bonded together to form a cavity therebetween; wherein: a refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic anterior lens element, and the refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic posterior lens element; and wherein each of the anterior nanostructure assembly and the posterior nanostructure assembly includes a plurality of protrusions having heights of between 30 nm and 200 nm, widths of between 30 nm and 300 nm, and spacings between adjacent protrusions of between 30 nm and 300 nm.
However, Hong teaches a similar IOL 150 comprising a lens body 150 and haptics 154 (par. 0046 and Figs. 1-2 and 17) comprising an anterior nanostructure assembly 156 formed thereon and posterior nanostructure assembly 156 formed thereon (Fig. 17 and par. 0046 discloses a nanostructure assembly disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces of the lens body 152); and wherein each of the anterior nanostructure assembly and the posterior nanostructure assembly includes a plurality of protrusions 22 (Fig. 2) having heights of between 30 nm and 200 nm (par. 0028 discloses protrusion height of 100-200 nm), widths of between 30 nm and 300 nm (par. 0028 discloses protrusion width of 25-50 nm), and spacings between adjacent protrusions of between 30 nm and 300 nm (par. 0028 discloses spacing between protrusions have a width of 10-30 nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IOL in Esch to include an anterior nanostructure assembly formed thereon and posterior nanostructure assembly formed thereon; and wherein each of the anterior nanostructure assembly and the posterior nanostructure assembly includes a plurality of protrusions having heights of between 30 nm and 200 nm, widths of between 30 nm and 300 nm, and spacings between adjacent protrusions of between 30 nm and 300 nm, as taught and suggested by Hong, for providing a reduction in surface reflection and scattering of light associated with IOLs (pars. 0002-0006).
Furthermore, Isaacson teaches a similar IOL 10 (Fig. 1) comprising a monolithic anterior lens element 12 and the monolithic posterior lens 14 element are bonded together to form a cavity 22 therebetween (Edges E function as bonding surfaces to bond lens 12 and 14 using an adhesive 20; Fig. 2; col. 3, lin. 15-18); an optical fluid 24 filled in the cavity 22 formed between the monolithic anterior lens element and the monolithic posterior lens element (col. 4, lin. 12-13), wherein: a refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic anterior lens element, and the refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic posterior lens element (abstract discloses at least one of the lens member has a diffractive zone plate and the index of refraction of the fluid is different from the index of refraction of the diffractive zone plate which can be on one or both lens). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IOL in Esch in view of Hong to include the monolithic anterior lens element and the monolithic posterior lens element are bonded together to form a cavity therebetween; wherein: a refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic anterior lens element, and the refractive index of the optical fluid is different than a refractive index of the monolithic posterior lens element, as taught and suggested by Isaacson, for providing a secured engagement between the lens preventing detachment to treat cataract in an eye.
Regarding claims 4-5, Esch discloses e optical fluid comprises silicone oil (par. 0051) and wherein the one or more haptics 22 each include an internal volume 34 that is in fluid communication with the cavity 35 (pars. 0049 and 0055 discloses fluid 38 travels through channels 34 in haptics 22 and cavity 35).
Regarding claim 7, Esch in view of Hong and Isaacson disclose the claimed invention of claim 1 including the structure of a lens body 21 having a monolithic anterior lens element 23 (par. 0049) and a monolithic posterior lens element 27 (par. 0049); and one or more haptics 22 coupled to the lens body (as shown in Fig. 3B) and an anterior nanostructure assembly 156 formed thereon and posterior nanostructure assembly 156 formed thereon (Fig. 17 and par. 0046 discloses a nanostructure assembly disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces of the lens body 152); and wherein each of the anterior nanostructure assembly and the posterior nanostructure assembly includes a plurality of protrusions 22 (Fig. 2) having heights of between 30 nm and 200 nm (par. 0028 discloses protrusion height of 100-200 nm), widths of between 30 nm and 300 nm (par. 0028 discloses protrusion width of 25-50 nm), and spacings between adjacent protrusions of between 30 nm and 300 nm (par. 0028 discloses spacing between protrusions have a width of 10-30 nm).
Esch in view of Hong and Isaacson is silent regarding explicitly disclosing wherein the anterior nanostructure assembly and the posterior nanostructure assembly are configured to reduce reflectivity of the lens body by between 10 % and 90 % as compared to a lens body with no nanostructure assemblies on the monolithic anterior lens element or the monolithic posterior lens element. However, Hong does disclose reducing reflectivity of the lens using the nanostructure assembly (pars. 0008 and 0029). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Esch in view of Hong and Isaacson to reduce reflectivity of the lens body by between 10 % and 90 %, since these are result effective variables that contribute to the surface reflectance and light scattering on the IOL, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the IOL to reduce reflectivity of the lens body by between 10 % and 90 %, would allow for a desired image with lower reflectance. MPEP 2144.05
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. MPEP 2144.05
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esch et al. (2007/0088433) “Esch” in view of Hong et al. (2012/0259411) “Hong” further in view of Isaacson et al. (5152788) “Isaacson” further in view of Ho et al. (2009/0076602)” “Ho”.
Esch in view of Hong and Isaacson discloses the claimed invention of claim 1; except for the monolithic anterior lens element and the monolithic posterior lens element each comprises poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS). However, Ho teaches an IOL comprising PDMS (0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IOL in Esch in view of Hong and Isaacson to include poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) as taught and suggested by Ho, for using a flexible polymer that allows for foldability and deformability (par.0008).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASHITA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5417. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm M-Th; 8am-4pm Fri. 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YASHITA SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights