DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks filed 10 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 24-36 are pending. Claims 37-46 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of remarks, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hof and Wiechmann “do[es] not disclose or suggest a digital product identification being arranged on the optical imaging element, within the optically effective zone as recited in independent claim 24” (pg. 12 of remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wiechmann discloses that “it is possible to dispose permanent marks on the ophthalmologic implant, which do not influence the light transmission of the implant in the visual spectral range…and fluoresce or absorb outside of the light spectrum visible to the human…such that reliable and secure detection of the posture and position and/or identification of the implant based on the mark without influencing or impairing the visual sensation of view of the implant wearer” (col. 2, par. 5). Therefore, it is clear that Wiechmann’s lens markings take into consideration the possible effect they may have on the viewing abilities of the lens, meaning these markings are disposed within an optically effective zone of the lens, and further, the markings utilize a particular dye which prevents any adverse viewing effects the markings could cause.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14 of remarks, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 24 under USC 103 wherein “the Office Action does not present evidence to address the claim limitations ‘a coded point grid made of marking points that is machine-readable in the visible light range and has a pseudo-random, irregular character’” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
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.
Claims 24-25, 30-31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hof et al. (US 2016/0144579 A1), “Hof” in view of Wiechmann et al. (US Pat. No. 9517126 B2), “Wiechmann”, and further in view of Hones et al. (US 2019/0235279 A1), “Hones”.
Regarding claim 24, Hof teaches an ophthalmological implant or an intraocular lens (invention relates to ophthalmic lenses [0048]), comprising: an optically imaging element (Fig. 9a, ophthalmic lens 100), including a central optical lens having an optically effective zone (Fig. 3b, central optical zone 310); and with a digital product identification of the ophthalmological implant (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11), the digital product identification including a type, a refractive power, a database key or a combination thereof (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 may contain information about optical parameters of the lens such as type, diopters, toric shape, etc. [0052]), but fails to teach a haptic adjoining the optically imaging element, and wherein the digital product identification presents a coded point grid made of marking points that is machine-readable in the visible light range and has a pseudo-random, irregular character, and the digital product identification being arranged on the optically imaging element, within the optically effective zone.
Wiechmann teaches an ophthalmologic implant wherein the digital product identification is arranged on the optically imaging element, within the optically effective zone (Fig. 9, mark 16 comprises a bar code formed on the lens body 12 (col. 8, par. 6)), and a haptic adjoining the optically imaging element (Fig. 9, attachment elements 14 formed on lens body 12 of ophthalmologic implant 10). Wiechmann discloses that the arrangement of several marks in one or more geometric patterns allows for quick determination of the posture and position of the implant within the eye (col. 4, par. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optically imaging element taught by Hof with the positioning of the digital product identification and haptics taught by Wiechmann in order to simplify positioning of the implant within the eye. However, Hof in view of Wiechmann fails to teach wherein the digital product identification presents a coded point grid made of marking points that is machine-readable in the visible light range and has a pseudo-random, irregular character.
Hones teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the digital product identification presents a coded point grid made of marking points that is machine-readable in the visible light range (Fig. 8, machine reading system 800 is used to read out encoded information of the dot pattern [0141-0142]) and has a pseudo-random, irregular character (Fig. 4C, the dot pattern includes dots 401a-c that are randomly displaced dots with respect to a regular array [0119-0120]). Hones discloses that random displacements of the dot pattern reduce optical effects caused by regularly spaced scattering centers, like a starburst-like glare [0119]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digital product identification taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the pseudo-random dot pattern taught by Hones in order to lessen unwanted optical effects such as glaring.
Regarding claim 25, Hof teaches the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 may comprise encoded information such as a bar-code, dot-code, or symbol-code or any combination of different kinds of codes and stored and accessed in a programmable control unit [0024]), but fails to teach it is arranged centrally within the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element.
Wiechmann teaches an ophthalmologic implant wherein the machine-readable coded point grid is arranged centrally within the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element (Fig. 6, mark 16 is formed in the center of lens body 12). Wiechmann discloses that the arrangement of several marks in one or more geometric patterns allows for quick determination of the posture and position of the implant within the eye (col. 4, par. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the machine-readable coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann in order to simplify positioning of the implant within the eye.
Regarding claim 30, Hof teaches the marking points (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11), the optically imaging element (Fig. 9a, ophthalmic lens 100), and the optically effective zone (Fig. 3b, central optical zone 310), but Hof in view of Wiechmann fails to teach wherein a proportion of an area of the marking points to the total area of the optically imaging element is selected from a group consisting of less than 2%, less than 1%, and less than 0.5%, and wherein the proportion of the area of the marking points to the area of the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element is selected from a group consisting of less than 8%, less than 4%, and less than 2% or a combination of the foregoing.
Hones teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein a proportion of an area of the marking points to the total area of the optically imaging element is selected from a group consisting of less than 2%, less than 1%, and less than 0.5%, (dot coverage can vary from 10% or more to about 75% [0090]) and wherein the proportion of the area of the marking points to the area of the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element is selected from a group consisting of less than 8%, less than 4%, and less than 2% or a combination of the foregoing (in reduced contrast areas, dots occupy at least 10% of the area [0092]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 31, Hof teaches wherein the machine-readable coded point grid has structural marking points (Fig. 3c, permanent marking 11 comprises a shape protruding beyond lens forming surface 21 [0054]).
Regarding claim 34, Hof teaches wherein the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points is arranged on the optically imaging element, in the optically imaging element or both (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 is positioned on ophthalmic lens 100 and may comprise encoded information such as a bar-code, dot-code, or symbol-code or any combination of different kinds of codes and stored and accessed in a programmable control unit [0024]).
Regarding claim 35, Hof teaches further comprising an alignment aid and comprising or consisting of the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points (permanent markings may be used to indicate proper alignment of the toric lens [0058]) but fails to teach being arranged within the optically effective zone.
Wiechmann teaches an ophthalmologic implant with markings being arranged within the optically effective zone (Fig. 9, mark 16 comprises a bar code formed on the lens body 12 (col. 8, par. 6)). Wiechmann discloses that the arrangement of several marks in one or more geometric patterns allows for quick determination of the posture and position of the implant within the eye (col. 4, par. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optically imaging element taught by Hof with the positioning of the digital product identification taught by Wiechmann in order to simplify positioning of the implant within the eye.
Regarding claim 36, Hof teaches further comprising a toric marker which is readable in a view from above, a toric marker which is readable in an axial view or both (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 may comprise encoded information such as a bar-code, dot-code, or symbol-code or any combination of different kinds of codes and stored and accessed in a programmable control unit [0024]).
Claims 26-29 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hof et al. (US 2016/0144579 A1), “Hof” in view of Wiechmann et al. (US Pat. No. 9517126 B2), “Wiechmann”, and Hones et al. (US 2019/0235279 A1), “Hones”, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 2009/0161957 A1), “Chan”.
Regarding claim 26, Hof teaches wherein the coded point grid is constructed from marking points such that a virtual polar or Cartesian base lattice is arranged on the optically imaging element (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 may comprise encoded information such as a bar-code, dot-code, or symbol-code or any combination of different kinds of codes and stored and accessed in a programmable control unit [0024]), but fails to teach the coded point grid within the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element that describes similar sectors or similar cells, each sector or cell having a defined base lattice point of the sector or the cell, as a result, and a real marking point of the coded point grid is arranged in each sector or each cell at a position which has an offset to the base lattice point, the offset in each sector or each cell being in one of four possible directions, which run pairwise opposite to each other, and having a defined distance to the base lattice point.
Wiechmann teaches an ophthalmologic implant comprising a coded point grid arranged within the optically effective zone of the optically imaging element (Fig. 9, mark 16 comprises a bar code formed on the lens body 12 (col. 8, par. 6)). Wiechmann discloses that the arrangement of several marks in one or more geometric patterns allows for quick determination of the posture and position of the implant within the eye (col. 4, par. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann in order to simplify positioning of the implant within the eye. However, Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach similar sectors or similar cells, each sector or cell having a defined base lattice point of the sector or the cell, as a result, and a real marking point of the coded point grid is arranged in each sector or each cell at a position which has an offset to the base lattice point, the offset in each sector or each cell being in one of four possible directions, which run pairwise opposite to each other, and having a defined distance to the base lattice point.
Chan teaches computer readable marks comprising similar sectors or similar cells (Fig. 3, grid 301 comprises squares [0074]), each sector or cell having a defined base lattice point of the sector or the cell (Fig. 3, intersection points 303), as a result, and a real marking point of the coded point grid is arranged in each sector or each cell at a position which has an offset to the base lattice point (Fig. 3, dots 302 are slightly modulated away from the grid positions [0074-0076]), the offset in each sector or each cell being in one of four possible directions, which run pairwise opposite to each other (Fig. 6, dot modulation positions 503 form a grid of nine modulation positions [0087, 0106]), and having a defined distance to the base lattice point (Fig. 6, vector 605 exists for each of the nine modulation positions from point 604 [0106]). Chan discloses that the slight modulation of the dots away from a regular array positioning makes the pattern less visible and allows for the storage of information based on the modulation pattern [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the sectors, lattices, and positioning taught by Chan in order to make the markings less visible to the patient on the lens.
Regarding claim 27, Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach the limitations of claim 27. Chan teaches computer readable marks wherein the sector or the cell with the base lattice point provides four states wherein a respective location of the marking point in one of four positions around the base lattice point (Fig. 6, dot modulation positions 503 form a grid of nine modulation positions [0087, 0106]). Chan discloses that the slight modulation of the dots away from a regular array positioning makes the pattern less visible and allows for the storage of information based on the modulation pattern [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the sectors, lattices, and positioning taught by Chan in order to make the markings less visible to the patient on the lens.
Regarding claim 28, Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach the limitations of claim 28. Chan teaches computer readable marks wherein the sector or the cell with the base lattice point provides a fifth state defined by the absence of a marking point at one of the four possible positions around the base lattice point (no dot being produced at an intersection can represent a logical “0” to the computer reading the markings [0135]). Chan discloses that the slight modulation of the dots away from a regular array positioning makes the pattern less visible and allows for the storage of information based on the modulation pattern [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the sectors, lattices, and positioning taught by Chan in order to make the markings less visible to the patient on the lens.
Regarding claim 29, Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach the limitations of claim 29. Chan teaches computer readable marks wherein further states are defined in the sector or the cell with the base lattice point by further offset directions, further defined distances of the offset of the marking point to the base lattice point or both (Fig. 6, dot modulation positions 503 form a grid of nine modulation positions [0087, 0106]). Chan discloses that the slight modulation of the dots away from a regular array positioning makes the pattern less visible and allows for the storage of information based on the modulation pattern [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the sectors, lattices, and positioning taught by Chan in order to make the markings less visible to the patient on the lens.
Regarding claim 32, Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach the limitations of claim 32.
Chan teaches computer readable marks further comprising a supplemented product identification which, in addition to the original product identification, has information for checksums and error correction methods (determining the correct orientation of the markings includes error correction codes [0162, 0220]). Chan discloses that the error correction code allows a bar code to be decoded even if there are limited transmission errors [0088]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the digital product identification taught by Hof in view of Wiechmann with the supplemented product identification taught by Chan in order to ensure readability of the markings despite machining errors.
Regarding claim 33, Hof teaches the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points (Fig. 3b, permanent marking 11 may comprise encoded information such as a bar-code, dot-code, or symbol-code or any combination of different kinds of codes and stored and accessed in a programmable control unit [0024]), but Hof in view of Wiechmann and Hones fails to teach one or more reference marks at a defined distance from the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points.
Chan teaches computer readable marks comprising one or more reference marks at a defined distance from the machine-readable coded point grid made of marking points (Fig. 28, alignment dots 2804, different from data carrying dots 2802, form a basic constellation which defines the grid spacing and orientation [0149-0150, 0221]). Chan discloses that the slight modulation of the dots away from a regular array positioning makes the pattern less visible and allows for the storage of information based on the modulation pattern [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coded point grid taught by Hof with the positioning taught by Wiechmann and the reference marks taught by Chan in order to make the markings less visible to the patient on the lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA G. B. RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00AM-6:00PM CST.
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 C 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.
/G.G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights