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 July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the office fails to state a prima facie case of anticipation because the rejection relies on multiple distinct embodiments within the Wortz reference, the rejection references different figures and cites parts of the disclosure of Wortz that describe the specific steps of using the devices disclosed in Wortz. For example, the reference to figure 4 Is for showing “advancing the platform into the interior space” since a platform is shown in the interior space of the eye. Furthermore, applicant argues that an anticipation rejection may not be based on multiple embodiments disclosed in a reference, however the examiner does not cite different structures of different embodiments to modify or combine features from the different embodiments. In the rejection set forth below, the examiner identifies that the “platform comprising an outer periphery can be “16 or 3603 or any housing structure” of the disclosure of Wortz. Therefore, the examiner is showing that all of the embodiments set forth in Wortz meet the claim limitations and claim 1 is anticipated by any of the embodiments disclose by Wortz without modification. The examiner merely cites 16 and 17 as exemplary “outer peripheries” and “inner peripheries” of the platform. The examiner has cited the terminology in the prior art that corresponds to the structure of each embodiment meeting the claim limitations. Applicant argues that the claimed platform is not specifically pointed out, however, the examiner has identified the platform as any of housing structures of any of the embodiments shown by Wortz, since all of the housing structures would have an inner periphery and an outer periphery surrounding an inner zone, the examiner merely highlights two of the exemplary embodiments for addressing the dependent claims. Therefore, applicant’s argument that the examiner relies on multiple embodiments in an anticipation rejection is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that portions 16 and 17 do not correlates to the inner and outer periphery “as seen in figure 2 of Applicant’s specification,” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, the claims merely require “an outer periphery and an inner periphery surrounding an inner zone of the platform” which is met by structures 16 and 17 of Wortz. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any additional limitations and features associated with figure 2 of applicant’s specification to further define the inner and outer periphery is not read into the claims. The applicant merely states that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have correlated structures 16 and 17 with the claimed limitations without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Simply saying that the interpretation is ‘ludicrous’ is not a persuasive argument. An inner and outer periphery defining one structure is very reasonably being interpreted as the outer surface of the platform (housing) and subsequent inner surface, since a periphery is defined as “the outer limits or edge of an area or object”. It would have Applicant’s arguments amount to a general allegation that the interpretation is ludicrous and pointing out the figures and structures in the drawings of the instant application without correlating the limitations in the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to the identification of the inner and outer periphery of the embodiment shown in figure 36, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for similar reasons related to structures 16 and 17 above. Applicant further seems to argue that the Offices fails to particularly point out and distinctly explain how the ring structure corresponds to the outer periphery and how structure 3606 and 3608 can correspond to the inner periphery. It is noted that it is applicant who is supposed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The Office must merely identify the prior art and explain how the prior art meets the claim limitations. The applicant appears to selectively argue the rejection leaving out words in the Office action to misunderstand the rejection. The Office Action does not merely cite the inner periphery as structures 3608-3606, the Office Action specifically identifies the inner periphery as “inside of 3608-3606” which describes the inside of edge of both of those portions of the structure. The applicant, again, merely states that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have correlated structures identified in the Office Action with the claimed limitations without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and seems to rely on additional features associated with figure 2 of applicant’s specification to further define the inner and outer periphery. As stated above, claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The inner and outer periphery of an object defines the outer limits of that object. Therefore, since the housing has openings and/or is hollow for receiving the optic, they will all inherently have inner and outer peripheries. Applicant seems to make generalizations that the prior art does not disclose these features merely because the prior art identifies different structures and reference numerals for their parts and do not correspond exactly to applicants figures and reference numerals. The determination of patentability is on the claims and not on whether or not applicant’s figures are found in the prior art exactly as shown.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 39 and 41, the amended limitations have been addressed in the rejections set forth below and therefore are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office fails to provide any reasoning with respect to claim 41 with a rational underpinning, that it is insufficient for the Office to use circular reasoning, that the Office has concluded obviousness without giving a specific reason why the artisan would have had any incentive to modify Pham in view of Deboer in the manner set forth by the office, and that the Office’s rationale is based upon nothing more than speculation, unfounded assumption and hindsight reconstruction, the applicant has not specifically addressed any of the actual rejection set forth by the Office Action. The applicant does not address the actual content of the rejection or the position of the examiner. It is applicant who appears to generally attack the rejection without addressing the deficiencies of the prior art with respect to the claims. The applicant merely restates the rejection made by the examiner and lists general allegations that the Office has failed to establish unpatentability without specific arguments directed to the claim limitations or the interpretation of the art. It appears the applicant ignores all of the rational set forth in the rejection. The rejection is restated on page 12 of applicant’s arguments, which clearly shows that the Office explains and describes the features in which Deboer teaches, which is to utilize a femtosecond laser to direct cutting energy into the eye “to remove opaque lens matrix from the lens capsule” at the time of the invention. The Office Action also then correlates this teaching to establishing the modification and motivation to combine by stating “Therefore, it would have been within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a femtosecond laser, as taught as a known art-recognized cutting energy in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention by Deboer, to direct cutting energy into the eye to both remove a central portion of a natural lens capsule and form an inner periphery in a portion of the lens capsule after the central portion thereof has been removed in order to surgically remove the opaque lens matrix from the lens capsule bag and prepare the lens capsular bag to receive an AIOL therein” as restated by applicant on page 13 of applicant’s arguments. It is unclear to the examiner how the applicant can make such arguments that the Office does not provide any rational underpinning, uses circular reasoning, or has concluded obviousness without a specific reason, and therefore applicants arguments appear to be baseless and are not persuasive.
Additionally, Applicant states that it is not simply enough for the Office to state a conclusion that because Deboer allegedly teaches something, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate that feature into the teachings of Pham and that the Office must take into account all the teachings of each reference and explain how the alleged modification of the teachings of the prior art would not render the prior art unsuitable for its intended use. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It also must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The applicant assumes that the Office has not taken in to account all the teachings of each reference, however, the examiner in fact has reviewed the teachings and has established a rejection based on this review. The Office does not have the burden to explain how the alleged modification would not render the prior art unsuitable for its intended use, particularly when the examiner takes the position that the modification improves the prior art as a motivation to add the additional feature and thus it makes clear the modification would not render Pham unsuitable for its intended use. It appears the applicant has confused the roles and burden of the applicant and the examiner in establishing obviousness.
Applicant states it is simply not enough for the Office to state that because Deboer teaches something, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate that feature into the teachings of Pham. Obviousness, in fact, may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it appears Applicant’s arguments misunderstand how obviousness is established and thus are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims on pages 14-19 over Wortz in view of Marcos Celestino repeat the same general allegations and statements with respect to obviousness as applied to claim 41 above, and therefore for the same reasons, it appears that applicant’s arguments misunderstand how obviousness is established and what is required by the Office to establish obviousness. The arguments do not provide any further arguments with respect to the prior art, claim limitations, or specific interpretation of the claims or prior art without merely re-stating the examiner’s rejection in the pages of the argument and therefore are not persuasive.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more of notches comprise aligned, spaced- apart individual notches” in the last lines of the claim. The claim only requires ‘one or more notches’ and therefore it is unclear how one notch would comprise aligned, spaced-apart individual notches. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim intends to claim at least two notches which can be spaced apart individual notches or if the claim encompasses one notch.
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 27-29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wortz et al (US 9358103).
Regarding claim 27, Wortz et al (hereafter Wortz) discloses a method comprising: accessing an interior space of an eye (form wound, remove cataract, figure 4A); advancing a platform into the interior space (insert prosthetic capsular device, figure 4A), the platform comprising an outer periphery (16 or 3603, or any housing structure) and an inner periphery (17 and side walls, figure 2; inside of 3608-3606, figure 36) surrounding an inner zone of the platform; coupling the platform with an inner periphery of the eye (figure 1, insert prosthetic capsular device, figure 4A); after advancing the platform into the interior space of the eye, advancing an optic (28 or 3604/3602 or any IOL) into the interior space (insert IOL into prosthetic capsular device), the optic comprising an optical zone, an outer periphery (30); advancing the optical zone of the optic into the inner zone of the platform; and advancing the outer periphery of the optic to a location of the platform between the outer periphery and the inner periphery thereof (figure 1).
Regarding claim 28, Wortz teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, further comprising performing an intraoperative power measurement of the eye after advancing the platform into the interior space and before advancing the optic into the interior space (perform refraction to determine ELP, figure 4A).
Regarding claim 29, Wortz teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 28, wherein performing the intraoperative power measurement comprises performing intraoperative aberrometry (refraction to determine ELP) .
Regarding claim 34, Worth teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, wherein the optic comprises a first optic (3604) and the method further comprises: advancing a second optic (3602) into the interior space of the eye, the second optic comprising an optical zone configured to adjust the optical performance of the first optic (C:53, L:51-67, refractive lens); and coupling the second optic with the platform anterior of the first optic by joining retention mechanisms of the second optic (edge of 3602, friction fit).
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anello et al (US 5728155).
Regarding claim 36, Anello et al (hereafter Anello) teaches a method of improving a patient's vision, comprising: providing a platform (12 or 18) for supporting an optic in an eye of a patient, the platform comprising a plurality of notches (15, figure 6; 20 figure 9), wherein the plurality of notches comprise aligned, spaced-apart individual notches (see image below, first notch 15 of thread is spaced apart from last notch formed by thread, and they are aligned along the axis shown below); coupling an optic (4) with the platform such that an optical zone thereof is disposed in a central portion of the platform and a retention mechanism of the optic is disposed in one of the notches of the plurality of notches in an initial position (figure 6); observing following placement of the optic that a more anterior or more posterior position could provide better optical performance; and modifying the platform to allow the optic to move from the initial position to an adjusted position to provide better optical performance (C:9, L:42-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Anello discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 36, wherein the platform comprises an implanted device (C:8, L:20-24)
Claims 41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pham et al (US 20030171807).
Regarding claim 41, Pham et al (hereafter Pham) discloses a method, comprising directing cutting energy into an eye to remove a central portion of a natural lens capsule from the eye (paragraph 0003, cataract extraction); directing cutting energy into the eye to form an inner periphery in a portion of the lens capsule that is to remain in the eye after the central portion thereof has been removed (paragraph 0003, posterior part of capsular bag and at least part of anterior part of capsular bag left in place); wherein the inner periphery comprises one or more notches configured to receive retention structures of an optic (32) to be coupled with the inner periphery of the remaining portion (paragraph 0006, sharp, discontinuous bend B1, B2 in posterior capsule wall), wherein the one or more notches comprise aligned (see image below), spaced-apart individual notches (discontinuous bend, discontinuous also reads on the bend portions being spaced-apart; B1, B2).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 44, Pham teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 41, further comprising advancing an optic into an open zone formed when the central portion of the natural lens capsule was removed (paragraph 0026); and coupling the retention structure of the optic with one of the notches (figures 5, 6, paragraph 0031).
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.
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 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (US 20030171807) in view of Deboer et al (US 20160331521).
Regarding claims 41-43, Pham et al (hereafter Pham) discloses a method, comprising directing cutting energy into an eye to remove a central portion of a natural lens capsule from the eye (paragraph 0003, cataract extraction); directing cutting energy into the eye to form an inner periphery in a portion of the lens capsule that is to remain in the eye after the central portion thereof has been removed (paragraph 0003, posterior part of capsular bag and at least part of anterior part of capsular bag left in place); wherein the inner periphery comprises one or more notches configured to receive retention structures of an optic to be coupled with the inner periphery of the remaining portion (paragraph 0006, sharp, discontinuous bend B1, B2 in posterior capsule wall), wherein the one or more notches comprise aligned (See image above), spaced-apart individual notches (discontinuous bend, discontinuous also reads on the bend portions being spaced-apart; B1, B2). However, Pham does not specifically teach directing a femtosecond laser to direct the cutting energy into the eye. However, Deboer et al (hereafter Deboer) teaches the was known in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a femtosecond laser to direct cutting energy into the eye to remove opaque lens matrix from the lens capsule at the time of the invention (paragraph 0004). Therefore, it would have been within the level of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a femtosecond laser, as taught as a known art-recognized cutting energy in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention by Deboer, to direct cutting energy into the eye to both remove a central portion of a natural lens capsule and form an inner periphery in a portion of the lens capsule after the central portion thereof has been removed in order to surgically remove the opaque lens matrix from the lens capsule bag and prepare the lens capsular bag to receive an AIOL therein.
Regarding claim 44, Pham in view of Deboer teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 41, wherein Pham further teaches advancing an optic into an open zone formed when the central portion of the natural lens capsule was removed (paragraph 0026); and coupling the retention structure of the optic with one of the notches (figures 5, 6, paragraph 0031)
Claim 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wortz et al (US 9358103), as applied to claim 28 above, in view of Marcos Celestino et al (US 20180271646).
Regarding claim 30, Wortz teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, but does not teach coupling further comprises photobonding at least a portion of the outer periphery of the platform to the inner periphery of the eye. However, Marcos Celestino et al (hereafter Marcos Celestino) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to utilize photobonding in a method with intraocular lens implants to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture (paragraphs 0016-0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the method of Wortz to further comprise photobonding at least a portion of the outer periphery of the platform to the inner periphery of the eye, as taught as known by Marchos Celestino, in order to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture.
Regarding claim 31, Wortz teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 30, wherein Wortz further teaches placing the outer periphery of the platform in an interior equatorial surface of a capsular bag of the eye (figure 26, 31), and therefore it would further be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the photobonding of the outer periphery of the platform, as taught by Marcos Celestino with respect to claim 30, to be applied to an interior equatorial surface of a capsular bag of the eye.
Regarding claim 32, Wortz in view of Marcos Celestino teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 30, wherein Wortz further teaches placing the outer periphery of the platform in the ciliary sulcus of the eye (figure 1), and therefore it would further be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to photobonding the outer periphery of the platform, as taught by Marcos Celestino with respect to claim 30, to a sulcus surface of the eye.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wortz et al (US 9358103) in view of Marcos Celestino et al (US 20180271646), as applied to claims 28, 30, 32 above, and further in view of Kelman (US 200401111152).
Regarding claims 33, Wortz in view of Marcos Celestino teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 27, 30, or 32, but does not specifically teach the step of photobonding the optic with an inner periphery of the platform. However, Kelman teaches it was also known in the art at the time of the invention to include a bonding process to a two component implantable intraocular lens using any number of conventional techniques that results in the two sections being attached together (paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include photobonding, as a known bonding process for intraocular lens implants at the time of the invention by Marcos Celestino (as applied in the rejection above, paragraph 0016-0017), to the optic with an inner periphery of the platform, as taught as desirable in the art at the time of the invention by Kelman, in order to securely attach the structures to one another.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wortz et al (US 9358103), as applied to claims 34 above, in view of Kelman (US 200401111152), and further in view of Marcos Celestino et al (US 20180271646).
Regarding claim 35, Wortz teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 34, but does not specifically teach coupling the second optic comprises photobonding the second optic to the platform. However, Kelman teaches it was also known in the art at the time of the invention to include a bonding process to a multi-component implantable intraocular lens using any number of conventional techniques that results in the two sections being attached together (paragraph 0030) in order to securely attach the structures to one another and Marcos Celestino teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to utilize photobonding in a method with intraocular lens implants to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture (paragraphs 0016-0017) as an art-recognized equivalent bonding process for implantable intraocular lens devices at the time of the invention. Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include photobonding, as a known bonding process for intraocular lens implants at the time of the invention by Marcos Celestino (as applied in the rejection above, paragraph 0016-0017), to the optic with an inner periphery of the platform, as taught as desirable in the art at the time of the invention by Kelman, in order to securely attach the structures to one another by means of a non-toxic process.
Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anello et al (US 5728155), as applied to claim 36 above, in view of Kelman (US 200401111152), and further in view of Marcos Celestino et al (US 20180271646).
Regarding claim 38, Anello teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 36, but does not specifically teach photobonding the optic to the platform in the adjusted position. However, Kelman teaches it was also known in the art at the time of the invention to include a bonding process to a multi-component implantable intraocular lens using any number of conventional techniques that results in the two sections being attached together (paragraph 0030) in order to securely attach the structures to one another and Marcos Celestino teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to utilize photobonding in a method with intraocular lens implants to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture (paragraphs 0016-0017) as an art-recognized equivalent bonding process for implantable intraocular lens devices at the time of the invention. Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include photobonding, as a known bonding process for intraocular lens implants at the time of the invention by Marcos Celestino (as applied in the rejection above, paragraph 0016-0017), to the optic with an inner periphery of the platform, as taught as desirable in the art at the time of the invention by Kelman, in order to securely attach the structures to one another by means of a non-toxic process after post operative adjustment.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (US 20030171807) in view of Deboer et al (US 20160331521), as applied to claim 44 above, in view of Marcos Celestino et al (US 20180271646).
Regarding claim 45, Pham in view of Deboer et al teaches all of the limitations set forth in 44, but does not specifically teach the coupling comprises photobonding the retention structure with the one of the notches. However, Marcos Celestino teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to utilize photobonding in a method with intraocular lens implants to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture (paragraphs 0016-0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the method of Pham in view of Deboer to further comprise photobonding the retention structure with the one of the notches, as taught as known by Marchos Celestino, in order to securely fix the implant to the capsular eye by means of a non-toxic process and providing a sufficient resistance to rupture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37 and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the claim objections above.
Claims 46-47 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to resolve the 112(b) issues with respect to claim 41 above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art (see above) teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 36, wherein Anello further teaches comprising modifying the platform by direction a laser into one of the notches to modify or eliminate a vane to allow the optic to move, however the claims have not been rejected over the body of prior art because no teaching could be found that suggests the combination of limitations in claim 36 with directing the laser to specifically modify or eliminate the notch itself to allow the optic to move, since Anello specifically teaches modifying and eliminating the vane allows the optic to move within the notch (groove) to adjust spherical power (C:9, L:31-42) and eliminating or modifying the notch (groove) not allow the optic to move within the notch. Therefore, is no motivation, suggestion, or teaching to produce the claimed invention.
The prior art (see above) teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 36, and although the prior art teaches creating a plurality of notches on an interior periphery of a partially evacuated lens capsule (Pham, above) and the prior art teaches modifying an optic to move from an initial position to an adjusted position to provide better optical performance in the interior periphery of a partially evacuated lens capsule, no teaching could be found to suggest the combination of limitations set forth in claim 36 with forming a plurality of notches on an interior periphery of a partially evacuated lens capsule, wherein the partially evacuated lens capsule with a plurality of notches is further modified to allow an optic implanted therein to move from an initial position to an adjusted position to provide better optical performance. Therefore, is no motivation, suggestion, or teaching to produce the claimed invention.
The prior art (see above) teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 44, however, no teaching could be found that teaches or suggests further comprising confirming pseudophakic optics of the eye and moving the optic to a notch anterior or posterior of the initial location, wherein the one or more notches are formed in a natural lens capsule from the eye having a central portion thereof removed and configured to receive retention features of an optic, if the pseudophakic optics are not as desired in combination with the limitations set forth in claim 44. Therefore, is no motivation, suggestion, or teaching to produce the claimed invention.
The prior art (see above) teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 44, however, no teaching could be found that teaches or suggests the combination of limitations in claim 44, and further advancing a second optic into an open zone and coupling the retention structure of the second optic with one of the notches to adjust the power of the eye following placement of the first optic, wherein the one or more notches are formed in a natural lens capsule from the eye having a central portion thereof removed and configured to receive retention features of an optic. Therefore, is no motivation, suggestion, or teaching to produce the claimed invention.
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 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 ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/ANH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771