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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2026 and 04/03/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 11-12, 15-16, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (US 2022/0233357) in view of Shtukater (US 2017/0270636).
Regarding claim 1, Saini discloses, a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Figs. and 9-13), comprising:
an imaging system (45) that receives visible light (“Incoming Light” and see 56) incoming to the eye (Para. 0014 and 0056); and
a light generation panel (46) and configured to generate and project an image (58) onto a retina (14) of the eye in which the device is implanted (40), the image being based on the light received by the imaging system (Para. 0056).
Saini does not disclose in the same embodiment a light generation panel and a microlens array that are configured to generate and project an image onto a retina of the eye in which the device is implanted.
Shtukater teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Fig. 1) that it would have been desirable to include a light generation panel (105) and a microlens array (Para. 0103-0104; note, discloses a layer of an array of micro lenses that are positioned over the embedded display 105) that are configured to generate (Para. 0103-0104) and project an image (Para. 0103-0104) onto a retina of the eye in which the device is implanted (Para. 0103-0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a light generation panel and a microlens array that are configured to generate and project an image onto a retina of the eye in which the device is implanted as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
In addition, the Examiner points out that Saini teaches, in a different embodiment that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to include a light generation panel (46) and a microlens array (47) that are configured to generate and project an image (58) onto a retina (14) of the eye in which the device is implanted (40) for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that enhances a user’s vision.
Regarding claim 2, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, control circuitry that causes the light generation panel and the microlens array to project the image onto a determined area of the retina (Para. 0066 and see 59).
Regarding claim 3, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, the light generation panel (46) comprises a plurality of individually controllable light emitting elements (Para. 0047-0049).
Shtukater teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the microlens array (Para. 0103; note, discloses individual microlenses in an array) comprises plural individual optical lenses arranged in an array having columns and rows (Para. 0103; note, discloses individual microlenses in an array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 4, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, the determined area of the retina is a healthy area of the retina (Para. 0072).
Regarding claim 11, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, a rechargeable battery (44) that is configured to power the imaging system, the control circuitry, and the light generation panel (Para. 0044 and 0079).
Regarding claim 12, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, the rechargeable battery (44) is configured to be recharged wirelessly from a charging system located outside the eye (Para. 0044 and 0079).
Regarding claim 15, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, the device is configured to be implanted in a chamber of the eye anterior to the iris (Para. 0015 and 0019).
Regarding claim 16, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, a method comprising implanting (Para. 0019 and see 40) the device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) into the eye (see 14).
Regarding claim 21, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Shtukater further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make light emitted by the light generation panel passes through the microlens array (Para. 0103-0104; note, discloses a layer of an array of micro lenses that are positioned over the embedded display 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 23, Saini in view of Shtukater discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Shtukater further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the light generation panel includes multiple individually controllable light emitting elements (Para. 0103; note, discloses ); the microlens array includes multiple individual lenses (Para. 0103); and respective ones of the light emitting elements in the light generation panel are associated with respective ones of the lenses in the microlens array (Para. 0103; note, discloses each microlens of the array corresponds to a pixel of the display 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Claims 5, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (US 2022/0233357) in view of Shtukater (US 2017/0270636) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fleischman et al. (US 9,028,067).
Saini in view of Shtukater remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Saini in view of Shtukater does not explicitly disclose the control circuitry determines the determined area of the retina using a stored mapping.
Fleischman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the control circuitry determines the determined area of the retina using a stored mapping (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7; note discloses using control circuitry to discover and mapping a user’s best remaining visual potential areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the control circuitry determines the determined area of the retina using a stored mapping as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Fleischman in the combination of Saini in view of Shtukater since Fleischman teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that effectively and efficiently corrects a user’s vision.
Regarding claim 17, Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Fleischman further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to include a method of using the device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising: causing the device to project a diagnostic image on different locations of the retina of the eye (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7); receiving patient feedback for each of the different locations (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7); creating a mapping of the retina of the eye based on the feedback (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7); and programming the mapping into the device (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Fleischman in the combination of Saini in view of Shtukater since Fleischman teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that effectively and efficiently corrects a user’s vision.
Regarding claim 19, Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Fleischman further teaches, the mapping maps the retina into functional areas and non-functional areas (Col. 2, lines 48-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-7; note discloses using control circuitry to discover and mapping a user’s best remaining visual potential areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Fleischman in the combination of Saini in view of Shtukater since Fleischman teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that effectively and efficiently corrects a user’s vision.
Claims 6-10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (US 2022/0233357) in view of Shtukater (US 2017/0270636) in view of Fleischman et al. (US 9,028, 067) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wiemer et al. (US 2021/0290440).
Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman remains as applied to claim 5 above.
Furthermore, Shtukater teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the imaging system (Para. 0103-0104), the control circuitry (Para. 0103-0104), the light generation panel (Para. 0103-0104), and the microlens array are arranged in a stack (Para. 0103-0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman does not disclose the device is arranged in a chip stack.
Wiemer teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Fig. 1C) that it would have been desirable to make the device in a chip stack (Para. 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device in a chip stack as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Wiemer teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 7, Saini, Shtukater, Fleischman and Wiemer discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Wiemer further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Fig. 1C) that it would have been desirable to make the imaging system is at a first side of the chip stack (Para. 0041-0042 and see Fig. 1C); and the microlens array is at a second side of the chip stack opposite the first side of the chip stack (Para. 0041-0042 and see Fig. 1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Wiemer teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 8, Saini, Shtukater, Fleischman and Wiemer discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Wiemer further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Fig. 1C-2B) that it would have been desirable to make the device comprises a body (215) comprising a central portion (see area where 217A disposed) and tabs (250) extending outward from the central portion (see Figs. 2A-B); and the chip stack is in the central portion (see 217A and associated text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Wiemer teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 9, Saini, Shtukater, Fleischman and Wiemer discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, a wireless communication antenna (see 52) that is configured to receive wireless communication signals (see 66) from outside the device (Para. 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 10, Saini, Shtukater, Fleischman and Wiemer discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Saini further discloses, the control circuitry is configured to program the mapping based on the wireless communication signals (Para. 0049-0050 and see 66).
Regarding claim 22, Saini, Shtukater, Fleischman and Wiemer discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Shtukater teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the imaging system (Para. 0103-0104), the control circuitry (Para. 0103-0104), the light generation panel (Para. 0103-0104), and the microlens array are arranged (Para. 0103-0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Shtukater in the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Saini since Shtukater teaches it is known to include these features in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Wiemer further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye (Fig. 1C) that it would have been desirable to make the device in a chip stack (Para. 0041-0042), the imaging system is at a first side of the chip stack (Para. 0041-0042 and see Fig. 1C); and the microlens array is at a second side of the chip stack opposite the first side of the chip stack (Para. 0041-0042 and see Fig. 1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Wiemer teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing clear and sharply focused images with enhanced image quality.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (US 2022/0233357) in view of Shtukater (US 2017/0270636) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrett (US 4,936,850).
Saini in view of Shtukater remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Saini in view of Shtukater does not explicitly disclose the device is configured to be implanted in a capsular bag of the eye.
Barrett teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the device is configured to be implanted in a capsular bag of the eye (Col. 3, lines 52-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device is configured to be implanted in a capsular bag of the eye as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Barrett in the combination of Saini in view of Shtukater since Barrett teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that is effectively, stably and securely implanted in an eye.
Regarding claim 14, Saini, Shtukater and Barrett discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Barrett further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the device is configured to be implanted in a ciliary sulcus of the eye (Col. 3, lines 52-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations of Barrett in the combination of Saini in view of Shtukater since Barrett teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device configured to be implanted in an eye that is effectively, stably and securely implanted in an eye.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (US 2022/0233357) in view of Shtukater (US 2017/0270636) in view of Fleischman et al. (US 9,028,067) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bonutti (US 2019/0065970).
Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman remains as applied to claim 17 above.
Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman does not disclose optimizing the mapping using artificial intelligence.
Bonutti teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make optimizing the mapping using artificial intelligence (Para. 0169).
Therefore, it would have been desirable to make optimizing the mapping using artificial intelligence as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Bonutti in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Bonutti teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device that effectively identifies irregularities or changes in the retina.
Regarding claim 20, Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Bonutti further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a device configured to be implanted in an eye that it would have been desirable to make the device is configured to control one or more elements of the light generation panel based on the mapping to project an image onto a functional area of the retina to reduce or eliminate a scotoma caused by a non-functional area of the retina (Para. 0134).
Therefore, it would have been desirable to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the device configured to be implanted in an eye of Bonutti in the combination of Saini, Shtukater and Fleischman since Bonutti teaches it is known to include this feature in a device configured to be implanted in an eye for the purpose of providing a device that effectively identifies irregularities or changes in the retina.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/17/2026
Prosecution Insights