Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/462,862

INTRAOCULAR LENS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 07, 2023
Priority
Sep 14, 2022 — EU 22195652.7
Examiner
PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D
Art Unit
3774
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Soleko S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allowance Rate
524 granted / 808 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
864
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
78.2%
+38.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 808 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority This application claims priority from foreign application EP22195652.7 filed 09/14/2022. Status of Claims Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are pending. Claim 5 have been cancelled. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1-3), Species B (Both Haptics are colored), and Species II (Both Tabs are colored) in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/07/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it falls short of the 50 word minimum and is not descriptive enough. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poler USPN 4,434,515. 1. Poler discloses an intraocular lens (Figure 9) capable of posterior chamber sutureless scleral fixation (this is considered an intended use limitation and given limited weight, accordingly the IOL of Poler is fully capable of being inserted in the same manner as the applicant’s invention because it has a similar size and shape), comprising an optic plate (41) and two haptics (45-48), each haptic of said two haptics having, at its extremity, a respective plug (45f/46f/47f/48f) for anchoring to the sclera (2:20-25), each plug bearing a hole (45d/46d/47d/48d); wherein the intraocular lens , further comprises a tab (54/54’) realized as an extension of a corresponding plug (the tabs extend inward from the plugs), each tab bearing a respective hole (52/52’/53/53’). 3. Poler discloses said plugs are flexible (5:60-6:3). 4. Poler discloses two tabs (54/54’). . 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. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A Novel Intraocular Lens Designed for Sutureless Scleral Fixation: Surgical Series (Carlevale, Published 06/11/2020, Cited in the applicant’s IDS) in view of Poler. 1. Carlevale discloses the invention substantially as claimed being an intraocular lens (Figures A/B) capable of posterior chamber sutureless scleral fixation (Lens design p. 258), comprising an optic plate (Figures A/B) and two haptics (thin struts top and bottom of Figures A/B), each haptic of said two haptics having, at its extremity, a respective plug (upper most and lower most T-shaped portions Figures A/B) for anchoring to the sclera (Lens design p. 258), wherein the intraocular lens, further comprises a tab (skinny middle two struts extending up/down from the curved strut at the base of the T shaped plug) realized as an extension of a corresponding plug (Figures A/B). However, Carlevale does not disclose each plug bearing a hole and each tab bearing a respective hole Poler teaches the use of an intraocular lens (Figure9) comprising a plate with two haptics 47a-c/48a-e each including a plug 47c with a bearing hole 47d and a tab 54/54’ with a hole 52/53 in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of lightening the frame, increasing flexibility, tool engagement, and allowing for attachment through ingrowth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the holes taught by Poler with the plugs and tabs of Carlevale in order to lightening the frame, increasing flexibility, tool engagement, and allowing for attachment through ingrowth. 2. Carlevale discloses said plugs are T-shaped (Figure A). 3. Carlevale discloses said plugs are flexible (Lens design discloses they are foldable which means they must be flexible p. 258). 4. Carlevale discloses two tabs (there are two tabs at each end extending down and up from the curved strut at the base of the plugs). 6. Carlevale discloses having a 5 to 8 mm optic diameter and an overall diameter between 11 and 15 mm (Lens design discloses 6.5mm and 13.2mm p. 258). 7. Carlevale discloses the haptics have a 0-13° anterior angulation with respect to the optic plate (Lens design discloses 5° p. 258). 8. Carlevale discloses a hydrophilic material (p. 261 last paragraph). Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlevale and Poler (Combination 1) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Chu US 2011/0251685 A1. Combination 1 discloses the invention substantially as claimed being described above. However, Combination 1 does not disclose the use of hydrophobic material or colored portions. Chu teaches the use of an IOL comprising a plate with two haptics Figures 7A/B. Chu discloses its old and well known in the art of IOLs to interchangeably use hydrophobic or hydrophilic materials based on the patients’ needs [0075]. The applicant admits that the benefits and detriments of these materials are known in art as document by the scientific literature [0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the IOL of Combination 1 to comprise a hydrophobic material in order to be more compatible with lubricants such as silicone. Chu further discloses its old and well known in the art of IOLs to form the haptics with a colored or opaque [0058] in order to create a strong high contrast color difference between the haptics and lens to provide the surgeon with better visualization of the haptics during the surgery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the entire haptics of Combination 1 to be opaque and colored in order to provide the surgeon with better visualization of the haptics during the surgery. Examiner’s Comment It is noted that the 103 rejection of claims 9-12 in view of Chu, is also applicable to being made over just Poler and Chu. The modifications and motivations would remain the same but Poler would be the base reference. In order to promote compact prosecution only one rejection was made using the references closest to that of the current application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-6085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 6 pm (HST). 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 R 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. CHRISTOPHER D. PRONE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3774 /Christopher D. Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12661224
PROSTHETIC VALVE HOLDERS WITH AUTOMATIC DEPLOYING MECHANISMS
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661223
MODULAR HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661165
METHOD OF ASSEMBLING A PIVOTAL BONE ANCHOR ASSEMBLY WITH RING RETAINER AND TWIST-IN-PLACE PRESSURE INSERT
10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653670
TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
4y 4m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12648848
EXPANSION AND LOCKING MECHANISM FOR MECHANICALLY EXPANDABLE VALVES
3y 11m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+19.3%)
4y 3m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 808 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month