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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “An intraocular lens (IOL) comprising: a front (anterior) surface comprising a front optic surface located in the central portion of the front surface and a front control surface located peripherally to the front optic surface; a back (posterior) surface comprising a back optic surface located in the central portion of the back surface and a back control surface located peripherally to the back optic surface; an optic zone defined by the front optic surface, the back optic surface, a thickness (which may be constant or vary radially or circumferentially) between front optic surface and the back optic surface, and a refractive index (e.g., one or more refractive index); and a control zone positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone and defined by the front control surface, the back control surface, and an edge; wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature, and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature; wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface); and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) (e.g., negative PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO)” should instead read, “An intraocular lens (IOL) comprising: a front surface comprising a front optic surface located in the central portion of the front surface and a front control surface located peripherally to the front optic surface; a back surface comprising a back optic surface located in the central portion of the back surface and a back control surface located peripherally to the back optic surface; an optic zone comprising a front optic surface, a back optic surface, and a thickness between the front optic surface and the back optic surface comprising a refractive index; and a control zone positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone comprising a front control surface, a back control surface, and an edge; wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature, and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature; wherein the front control surface or back control surface control surface comprises at least one discontinuity; and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO)” for clarity and to remove examples provided in the specification.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “An intraocular lens (IOL) comprising: an optic zone comprising a front (anterior) optic surface, a back (posterior) optic surface, a thickness (between front and back optic surfaces which may be constant or vary radially or circumferentially), and a refractive index (e.g., one or more refractive index); and a control zone positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone and comprising a front (anterior) control surface, a back (posterior) control surface, and an edge; wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature, and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature; wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface); and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO)” should instead read, “An intraocular lens (IOL) comprising: an optic zone comprising a front optic surface, a back optic surface, a thickness, and a refractive index; and a control zone positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone and comprising a front control surface, a back control surface, and an edge; wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature, and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature; wherein the front control surface or back control surface comprises at least one discontinuity; and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO)” for clarity and to remove examples provided in the specification.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises a discontinuity with an optic surface (e.g., at a location where a control surface meets an optic surface, forming a jump, or ledge or step)” for clarity should instead read, “wherein the front control surface or the back control surface control surface comprises a discontinuity with an optic surface” to remove aforementioned control surface and examples that are provided in the specification.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity within its surface profile (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface) whereby the at least one discontinuity sub- divides a control surface into segments or sub-regions, or sub-portions of the control surface” for clarity should instead read, “wherein the front control surface or the back control surface comprises at least one discontinuity within its surface profile, whereby the at least one discontinuity sub-divides a control surface into segments or sub-regions, or sub-portions of the control surface” to remove examples that are provided in the specification.
Regarding claims 5-10 and 13-19, the phrase “the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity)” and similar phrases such as “a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity)” should instead read, “the at least one discontinuity” for clarity.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein an angle of a sidewall (e.g. a surface connecting two segments of a surface produced by a discontinuity) formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) on a surface is at an angle or slope of between (inclusively) 0° (e.g., parallel or substantially parallel to) and 80° degrees with respect to an axis of the intra-ocular lens, 0° to 75°, 0° to 70°, 0° to 65°, 0° to 60°, 0° to 55°, 0° to 50°, 0° to 45°, 0° to 40°, 0° to 35°, 0° to 30°, 0° to 25°, 0° to 20°, 0° to 15°, 0° to 10°, 0° to 5° (e.g., about 5°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 55°, 60°, 65°, 70°, 75°, 80°,) should instead read, “wherein the at least one discontinuity forms a sidewall with another discontinuity, the sidewall comprising an angle or slope between 0 and 80 degrees with respect to an axis of the intra-ocular lens” for clarity and to remove examples provided in the specification.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the height of a sidewall formed by the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 750 um, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 500 um, or greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 250 um (e.g., about 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.75 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm or 1 mm)” should instead read, “the at least one discontinuity forming a side wall with a height that is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 750 um, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 500 um, or greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 250 um” for clarity and to remove examples provided in the specification.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “wherein one or more corner points (e.g., external-comer point or internal-comer point) formed by a discontinuity on a surface may be optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective (e.g., allow some color/wavelengths to transmit while others to be attenuated), scattering or diffusive (e.g., spread or distribute light to a wide angle), and/or reflective” should instead read, “where in the at least one discontinuity forms one or more corner points, the one or more corner points being optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective, and/or reflective” for clarity and to remove examples provided in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson et al. (US 20080269890 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (10) comprising: a front (anterior) surface (16) comprising a front optic surface located in the central portion of the front surface (fig. 2b annotated below illustrates a front optic surface located in the central portion of the front surface 16) and a front control surface located peripherally to the front optic surface (fig. 1b annotated below illustrates a front control surface 20 peripheral to a front optic surface 16); a back (posterior) surface (18) comprising a back optic surface located in the central portion of the back surface (fig. 2b annotated below illustrates a back optic surface located in the central portion of the back surface 18) and a back control surface located peripherally to the back optic surface (fig. 1b annotated below illustrates a back control surface 22 peripheral to a back optic surface 18); an optic zone (¶ 0063 discloses an optic zone or image forming zone IL) defined by the front optic surface, the back optic surface, a thickness (which may be constant or vary radially or circumferentially) between front optic surface and the back optic surface, and a refractive index (e.g., one or more refractive index) (fig. 2b annotated below illustrates an optic zone defined by a front optic surface and back optic surface, ¶ 0060 discloses a central optic region with a thickness, and ¶ 0058 discloses an optic comprising a requisite index of refraction); and a control zone (14) positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone and defined by the front control surface (20), the back control surface (22), and an edge (fig. 1b illustrates a control zone with a front surface, back surface, and edge); wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature (fig. 1b illustrates a front optic surface 16 with a curvature and a front control surface 20 with a different curvature or flat configuration), and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature (fig. 1b illustrates a back optic surface 18 with a curvature and a back control surface 22 with a different curvature or flat configuration); wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface) (fig. 1b illustrates and ¶ 0059 discloses a front control surface 20 with discontinuities e.g. surface undulations 26. ¶ 0020 discloses that discontinuities/textured regions can be disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces.); and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) (e.g., negative PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO) (The abstract discloses an intraocular lens comprising an optic and peripheral optic flange/control zone that inhibits dysphotosia. ¶ 0065 discloses that an intraocular lens may also be configured to minimize the potential of PCO).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
731
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Simpson discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (10) comprising: an optic zone comprising a front (anterior) optic surface, a back (posterior) optic surface, a thickness (between front and back optic surfaces which may be constant or vary radially or circumferentially), and a refractive index (e.g., one or more refractive index) (fig. 2b annotated above illustrates an optic zone comprising a front optic surface and back optic surface, ¶ 0060 discloses a central optic region with a thickness, and ¶ 0058 discloses an optic comprising a requisite index of refraction); and a control zone positioned peripherally relative to the optic zone and comprising a front (anterior) control surface, a back (posterior) control surface, and an edge (fig. 1b illustrates a control zone 14 positioned peripherally relative to an optic zone with a front surface 20, back surface 22, and edge); wherein the front optic surface has a first surface curvature and the front control surface has a second surface curvature different than the first surface curvature (fig. 1b illustrates a front optic surface 16 with a curvature and a front control surface 20 with a different curvature or flat configuration), and the back optic surface has a third surface curvature and the back control surface has a fourth surface curvature different than the third surface curvature (fig. 1b illustrates a back optic surface 18 with a curvature and a back control surface 22 with a different curvature or flat configuration); wherein a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface) (fig. 1b illustrates and ¶ 0059 discloses a front control surface 20 with discontinuities e.g. surface undulations 26. ¶ 0020 discloses that discontinuities/textured regions can be disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces.); and wherein the control zone is configured to reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate negative peripheral pseudophakic dysphotopsia (PPD) and/or reduce, minimize, and/or eliminate posterior capsular opacification (PCO) (The abstract discloses an intraocular lens comprising an optic and peripheral optic flange/control zone that inhibits dysphotosia. ¶ 0065 discloses that an intraocular lens may also be configured to minimize the potential of PCO).
Regarding claim 3, Simpson further discloses that the control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises a discontinuity with an optic surface (e.g., at a location where a control surface meets an optic surface, forming a jump, or ledge or step) (fig. 1b annotated below illustrates that the control surface 20/22 comprises a discontinuity with an optic surface 16/18 such as a ledge or flanged peripheral portion 14).
PNG
media_image3.png
734
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Simpson further discloses that a control surface (e.g., at least one of the front control surface and back control surface) comprises at least one discontinuity within its surface profile (e.g., a jump, ledge or step occurs along a control surface) whereby the at least one discontinuity sub-divides a control surface into segments or sub-regions, or sub-portions of the control surface (fig. 1b annotated below illustrates and ¶ 0059 discloses that a control surface 20 comprises discontinuities e.g. surface undulations with different ranges of amplitudes ranging from 0.2-2.0 micros thereby subdividing the control surface into segments).
PNG
media_image4.png
689
531
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Simpson further discloses that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is on the back control surface (¶ 0020 discloses that discontinuities/textured regions can be disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Simpson further discloses that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is on the front control surface (fig. 1b illustrates discontinuities 26 on the front control surface 20).
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.
Claims 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 20080269890 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches an alternate embodiment (102) wherein a boundary between the optic zone and the control zone forms an optic-control junction and the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is at the optic-control junction (fig. 13a annotated below illustrates and ¶ 0095 discloses zone boundaries between an optic zone and control zone forming a junction between the two zones and that the junction comprises discontinuities).
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 intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include a boundary between the optic zone and the control zone that forms an optic-control junction and the discontinuity is at the optic-control junction as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment 102 in order to modify the fraction of optical energy diffracted (Simpson ¶ 0095).
PNG
media_image5.png
444
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches an alternate embodiment (102) in which a boundary between the optic zone and the control zone forms an optic- control junction, the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) (fig. 13a annotated above illustrates and ¶ 0095 discloses zone boundaries between an optic zone and control zone forming a junction between the two zones and that the junction comprises discontinuities). Simpson further teaches that the discontinuity is on the back control surface and is at the optic-control junction (¶ 0094 discloses that a diffractive structure or discontinuities may be disposed on the anterior 108 or posterior surface 110).
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 intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include a boundary between the optic zone and the control zone that forms an optic-control junction and that the discontinuity is on the back control surface and is at the optic-control junction as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment 102 in order to modify the fraction of optical energy diffracted (Simpson ¶ 0095).
Regarding claim 11, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches an alternate embodiment (fig. 1c) wherein an angle of a sidewall (e.g. a surface connecting two segments of a surface produced by a discontinuity) formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) on a surface is at an angle or slope of between (inclusively) 0° (e.g., parallel or substantially parallel to) and 80° degrees with respect to an axis of the intra-ocular lens, 0° to 75°, 0° to 70°, 0° to 65°, 0° to 60°, 0° to 55°, 0° to 50°, 0° to 45°, 0° to 40°, 0° to 35°, 0° to 30°, 0° to 25°, 0° to 20°, 0° to 15°, 0° to 10°, 0° to 5° (e.g., about 5°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 55°, 60°, 65°, 70°, 75°, 80°,) (¶ 0060 discloses that the angle of the sidewall can be slanted anteriorly or posteriorly relative to a central optic and fig. 1c illustrates a side wall with an angle of about 45 degrees with respect to the axis of the intraocular lens).
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 intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include a sidewall angled with respect to an axis of the intra-ocular lens as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment 10’ in order to inhibit dysphotosia (Simpson ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 15, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches in alternate embodiments that a segment, or sub-region or sub-portion of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity), has similar or the same surface curvatures and/or profiles as each other (fig. 5e annotated below illustrates a control surface 87 with multiple sub-regions two of which have the same or similar profiles as each other and fig. 5b illustrates two control surfaces 61a/61b adjoined by an edge 61 having the same or similar surface curvature).
PNG
media_image6.png
474
466
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include a segment, or sub-region or sub-portion of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by a discontinuity, having similar or the same surface curvatures and/or profiles as each other as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiments 57 and 81 in order to direct light into a retinal shadow region (Simpson ¶ 0081) or focus light rays onto the retina to form a single image of a field of view (Simpson ¶ 0073).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 20080269890 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stanley et al. (US 20080269886 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is within the control surface. Stanley also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) comprising (10): a front (anterior) surface (14) comprising a front optic surface (20) located in the central portion of the front surface (¶ 0018 discloses an optical surface disposed about an optical axis), a back (posterior) surface (16) comprising a back optic surface (20) located in the central portion of the back surface (¶ 0018), and a back control surface (22) located peripherally to the back optic surface (fig. 1a). Stanley teaches that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is within the control surface (figs. 11a and 11c disclose discontinuities/grooves 73 within the control surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include that the discontinuity is within the control surface as taught by Stanley in order to redirect light rays via refraction by the anterior surface to retinal locations between images to inhibit the perception of a shadow by the subject in their peripheral visual field (Stanley ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is on the back control surface and is within the control surface. Stanley also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) comprising (10): a front (anterior) surface (14) comprising a front optic surface (20) located in the central portion of the front surface (¶ 0018 discloses an optical surface disposed about an optical axis), a back (posterior) surface (16) comprising a back optic surface (20) located in the central portion of the back surface (¶ 0018), and a back control surface (22) located peripherally to the back optic surface (fig. 1a). Stanley teaches that the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is on the back control surface and is within the control surface (figs. 11a and 11c disclose discontinuities/grooves 73 within the back control surface 71). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include that the discontinuity is on the back control surface and is within the control surface as taught by Stanley in order to redirect light rays via refraction by the anterior surface to retinal locations between images to inhibit the perception of a shadow by the subject in her peripheral visual field (Stanley ¶ 0070).
Claims 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 20080269890 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paul (US 6468306 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that the height of a sidewall formed by the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 750 um, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 500 um, or greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 250 um (e.g., about 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.75 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm or 1 mm). Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20) comprising: a front (anterior) surface comprising a front optic surface (40 AF) located in the central portion of the front surface and a front control surface (46) located peripherally to the front optic surface; a back (posterior) surface comprising a back optic surface (40 PF) located in the central portion of the back surface (see fig. 3 annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
614
851
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Paul teaches that that the height of a sidewall formed by the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 750 um, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 500 um, or greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 250 um (e.g., about 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.75 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.9 mm or 1 mm) (col. 8 table 1 and 2 disclose side wall heights between 0 mm-1 mm/0um and 750um). 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 intraocular lens of Simpson to include a sidewall formed by the discontinuity in which the height is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 750 um, greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 500 um, or greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 250 um as taught by Paul in order to reduce glare and PCO in intraocular lenses (Paul col. 8 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 13, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson further discloses that a profile of a sidewall formed by the discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) is straight (e.g., a part of a cylinder or a frustum), However, Simpson fails to disclose that the sidewall formed by the discontinuity is curved (e.g., a part of a conic surface or an ogive), or aspheric or tortuous or stepped (e.g. sawtooth, or echelette, or crenelated) or irregular. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches that a profile of a sidewall formed by a discontinuity is straight (e.g., a part of a cylinder or a frustum), curved (e.g., a part of a conic surface or an ogive), or aspheric or tortuous or stepped (e.g. sawtooth, or echelette, or crenelated) or irregular (fig. 8 illustrates a sidewall/edge with a straight profile, fig. 19 illustrates a sidewall/edge with a curved profile, and figs. 18 and 20 illustrate side walls/edges with sawtooth or stepped profiles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include a profile of a sidewall formed by a discontinuity that is straight, curved, or aspheric or tortuous or stepped, or irregular as taught by Paul in order to reduce glare and PCO (Paul col. 13 lines 59-66).
Regarding claim 14, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that a corner formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) may be radiused, or filleted, or beveled, or chamfered. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches that a corner formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) may be radiused, or filleted, or beveled, or chamfered (fig. 19 illustrates a radiused corner 264, fig. 16 illustrates a filleted corner 226b, fig. 20 illustrates a discontinuity with beveled surfaces 286/290 forming respective corners 282/284, and fig. 7 illustrates a discontinuity with a chamfered surface 96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include a corner formed by a discontinuity that may be radiused, or filleted, or beveled, or chamfered as taught by Paul in order to help reduce glare (Paul – Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches alternate embodiments in which segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface have different surface curvatures and/or profiles from each other (fig. 5e annotated below illustrates a control surface 87 with multiple sub-regions two of which have the same or similar profiles as each other). 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 intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include a segment, or sub-region or sub-portion of a control surface as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment 57 in order to direct light into a retinal shadow region (Simpson ¶ 0081).
Simpson as modified fails to disclose that two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) has different surface curvatures and/or profiles from each other. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) has different surface curvatures and/or profiles from each other (fig. 19 illustrates two adjoining control surfaces 264 and 268 with different profiles). 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 intraocular lens of Simpson to include control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity having different surface curvatures and/or profiles from each other as taught by Paul in order to diffuse light rays striking a peripheral edge thus reducing glare (col. 13 lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 17, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches alternate embodiments wherein segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) have the same, similar, and/or different sidewall heights from each other (fig. 5e illustrates segments of a control surface 85a having similar sidewall heights and fig. 5b illustrates segments of a control surface 20 comprising discontinuities 26 with different sidewall heights). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity having the same, similar, and/or different sidewall heights from each other as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment in order to inhibit formation of a secondary image (Simpson ¶ 0059).
Simpson as modified fails to disclose that two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) have the same, similar, and/or different sidewall heights from each other. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches that two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) have the same, similar, and/or different sidewall heights from each other (fig. 20 illustrates two control surfaces 286/290 having a similar sidewall height joined by a discontinuity 288). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity having the same, similar, and/or different sidewall heights from each other as taught by Paul in order to reduce PCO (Paul col. 13 lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 19, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that a surface of a sidewall formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) on a surface is optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective (e.g., allow some color/wavelengths to transmit while others to be attenuated), scattering or diffusive (e.g., spread or distribute light to a wide angle), and/or reflective. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches that a surface of a sidewall formed by a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) on a surface is optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective (e.g., allow some color/wavelengths to transmit while others to be attenuated), scattering or diffusive (e.g., spread or distribute light to a wide angle), and/or reflective (col. 3 lines 33-35 disclose a peripheral edge/sidewall may be partially opaque/partially transmitting, col. 9 line 20 discloses a peripheral edge/sidewall 42 that diffuses incoming light rays, and col. 9 lines 15-18 discloses a peripheral edge 42 in which light rays are reflected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include a surface of a sidewall formed by a discontinuity on a surface is optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective, scattering or diffusive, and/or reflective as taught by Paul in order to reduce glare obtained in the eye (Paul - Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson fails to disclose that one or more corner points (e.g., external-comer point or internal-comer point) formed by a discontinuity on a surface may be optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective (e.g., allow some color/wavelengths to transmit while others to be attenuated), scattering or diffusive (e.g., spread or distribute light to a wide angle), and/or reflective. Paul also discloses an intraocular lens (IOL) (20). Paul teaches that one or more corner points (e.g., external-comer point or internal-comer point) formed by a discontinuity on a surface may be optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective (e.g., allow some color/wavelengths to transmit while others to be attenuated), scattering or diffusive (e.g., spread or distribute light to a wide angle), and/or reflective (col. 13 lines 49-55 disclose peripheral regions extending between edge corners 282/284 helping to attenuate/reduce glare and col. 12 lines 29-30 disclose a rounded corner or transition surface 210 that diffuses light rays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Simpson to include one or more corner points formed by a discontinuity on a surface may be optically non-transmitting, partially transmitting, partially attenuating, spectrally selective, scattering or diffusive, and/or reflective as taught by Paul in order to reduce glare obtained in the eye (Paul - Abstract).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 20080269890 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Portney (US 6210005 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Simpson discloses the invention as claimed as discussed with respect to claim 1. Simpson teaches an alternate embodiment wherein segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) has the same or similar sidewall angles from each other (fig. 5c illustrates discontinuities with similar sidewall angles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens 10 of Simpson to include segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity (e.g., the at least one discontinuity) has the same or similar sidewall angles from each other (fig. 5c illustrates discontinuities with similar sidewall angles) as taught by Simpson’s alternate embodiment in order to direct light onto a shadow region (Simpson ¶ 0075).
Simpson as modified fails to disclose that segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity have sidewall angles from each other that are different. Portney also discloses an intraocular lens (11) comprising: a front (anterior) surface (28) comprising a front optic surface (18) located in the central portion of the front surface and a front control surface (fig. 5) located peripherally to the front optic surface (fig. 5 illustrates a control surface located peripherally to a front optic surface 18). Portney teaches that segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity have sidewall angles from each other that are different (fig. 5 illustrates segments 20/22 of a control surface that have different sidewall angles from each other). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simpson’s modified intraocular lens to include segments, sub-regions or sub-portions of a control surface, or two or more adjoining control surfaces formed by the occurrence of a discontinuity having sidewall angles from each other that are different as taught by Portney in order to provide reductions in halos, glare, or flare (Portney - Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA BAUTISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-0927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 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 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.
/A.G.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774