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 examiner apologizes for the delay in the instant Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0001, last line, “an intraocular lenses” lacks proper grammatical syntax. In paragraph 0005, there appear to be redundancies on the sixth through ninth lines with regard to refractive index and Abbe number of the optical fluid. In paragraph 0031, fourth line, “a lens manufacturing systems” lacks proper syntax. 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.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claims 2, 9, and 16, line 3 of each, “that”, last occurrence, should apparently read --than--. In claims 3 and 10, the lower limits “37” and “40” of respective first and second Abbe numbers are at odds with “a second Abbe number that is less than the first Abbe number” (e.g., claim 1 at line 10) and thus create confusion as to the scope; that is, when the first Abbe number is 37, the second Abbe number would need to be a value lower than the claimed range in order to satisfy the “less than” limitation of claims 1 and 8.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuiper et al., US 2007/0153405 A1, in view of Boysset et al., US 2020/0397563 A1. Kuiper et al. disclose an intraocular lens comprising a lens body 26 having an anterior lens 106, a posterior lens 28, and optical fluids in a cavity 114 formed between anterior lens 106 and posterior lens 28 (Figure 4; paragraphs 0053+). One of the optical fluids having an Abbe number less than the Abbe number of the anterior and posterior lenses would have been immediately obvious, if not inherent, to the ordinary practitioner at the effective filing date of the present invention from the expressed intent to “improve a positive and/or a negative chromatic aberration of a defective eyesight” via a desired fluidic optical dispersion or Abbe number (paragraph 0038) and from one of the fluids being of silicone oil (paragraph 0037) and the anterior and posterior lenses 106, 28 being formed of PMMA (paragraph 0036).
Kuiper et al. apparently lack anterior and posterior lenses that are concave or negative (as characterized in Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0017, for example). However, anterior chamber IOLs were quite common in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application, as seen in Boysset et al. (abstract; paragraphs 0005, 0034, 0091), and to form anterior lens 106 and posterior lens 28 of Kuiper et al. to be somewhat concave or negative would have been an obvious variant in order to help correct a myopic phakic eye (Kuiper et al.: paragraphs 0002, 0015, 0045, 0049, 0059), with further motivation (to combine) provided by Boysset et al. specifically identifying the same type of IOL design with immiscible fluids, meniscus, and so on (paragraphs 0056, 0062) and teaching that vision correction, in addition to accommodation, may be attained (paragraph 0111) so as to avoid the need for eyeglasses (Boysset et al.: paragraphs 0005, 0011, 0035); Kuiper et al.: paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19, respective Abbe numbers within the specified ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art under routine experimentation and/or analysis in order to accommodate a diversity of patients with defective eyesight involving positive and/or negative aberrations (Kuiper et al.: paragraphs 0038, 0059), especially in view of the materials used (e.g., PMMA and silicone oil: paragraphs 0036-0037); silicone oil possesses a refractive index of about 1.4, whereas that of PMMA is approximately 1.5. Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20, a single piece IOL having a main frame and haptics was ubiquitous in the art, as shown in Figures 1-2 and 9 of Boysset et al. (main frame or support 17, haptics 30), and thus would have been obvious in order to stably engage or affix to inner portions of an eye (Boysset et al.: paragraphs 0091-0092). Regarding claim 8, the IOL is fabricated by bonding and filling (Kuiper et al.: paragraphs 0037, 0053-0054). Regarding claim 15, computing anterior and posterior radii of curvature based on an IOL base or prescription power, refractive indices, and Abbe numbers was well known in the art and would have been obvious from Kuiper et al. (paragraphs 0015, 0036, 0049, 0059) in order to attempt to impart emmetropia to an eye, with Boysset et al. demonstrating that even an implanted “calculation module” can determine focal lengths as appropriate (Figure 1; paragraphs 0083-0084; attention is also directed to paragraph 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 571-272-9062. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights