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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Williams reference requires a hollow reservoir, while the instantly claimed apparatus does not.
Williams discloses that the ocular apparatus may comprise a hollow reservoir or may include a single layer with a plurality of regions or zones of porosity (see p5, lines 16-18).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 00/64511 to Williams et al.
In the specification and figures, Williams discloses the apparatus as claimed by Applicant. With regard to claims 1-3, 7, Williams discloses a drainage device 10 for draining fluid from an eye comprising a body portion with no chamber 9 with a first portion with a first porosity 12, a second portion with a second porosity 11, a conduit with a first end 8 coupled to the body and a second end in the anterior chamber, wherein the porosity of surface 11 facilitates vascular ingrowth (see FIG 2; p5, lines 10-24; p2, lines 28-30).
With regard to claims 15-17, Williams discloses a third layer that may comprise a support structure made of polypropylene, wherein the conduit may be attached to the support structure (see p5-6).
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 4-7, 8-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by WO 00/64511 to Williams et al.
In the specification and figures, Williams teaches the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claims 4-6, Williams discloses a third region 13 with a porosity that may be different than the first and second porosity, wherein the regions may comprise layers or a single layer with a plurality of porosities in order to facilitate vascularization as well as drainage (see p5-6).
With regard to claim 8, Williams does not disclose that the conduit is attached across 50% of the body portion. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). The placement of the conduit with respect to the body is within the skill of a worker in the art.
With regard to claims 9-11, Williams teaches a third layer 13 to which the conduit may be attached at an attachment region, wherein the third layer may comprise an erosion element, wherein layer 13 may be individual layers or a single layer with a plurality of regions, teaching the embodiments claimed by Applicant (see p5).
With regard to claims 12-14 and 19, Applicant is claiming more layers that face one another. Williams discloses layers of different porosity 11, 12, in combination with a support structure 13. It has been held that the mere duplication of the parts of an apparatus found in the prior art is not patentably significant unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
With regard to claim 18, Williams discloses that there are channels formed in the layers, suggesting the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 R DEAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am to 5:30pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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 R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 30 January 2026