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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 9/15/2023. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, all limitations following “such as” will be treated as part of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims not specifically mentioned inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altheimer et al. (2015/0002810), hereinafter Altheimer in view of Wuellner et al. (WO 2014008904), hereinafter Wuellner.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 15, Altheimer discloses an apparatus for determining at least one parameter of a lens for an eye (spectacle lens; paragraph 0002 and 0009), the apparatus comprising: a. means for obtaining topographic information of an anterior surface and topographic information of a posterior surface of a cornea of the eye (paragraphs 0014 and 0023); b. means for obtaining distance information of a retina of the eye relative to the anterior surface of the cornea of the eye (paragraphs 0025 and 0026); and c. means for determining the at least one parameter of the lens of the eye to optimize focusing on the retina by ray tracing (paragraphs 0027, 0065, and 0157) at least in part based on the topographic information of the anterior surface of the cornea (paragraphs 0009, 0023, 0025, and 0112), the topographic information of the posterior surface of the cornea and the distance information (paragraphs 0009 and 0023).
Although Altheimer discloses obtaining topographic information of the cornea and front surface of the cornea (paragraph 0023). Altheimer does not specifically disclose obtaining topographic information of the posterior surface of the cornea.
Wuellner discloses obtaining topographic information of the posterior and anterior surface of the cornea (page 32, lines 17-18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Altheimer with the topography of the anterior and posterior surfaces of Wuellner for the purpose of showing the features of the front and back surfaces of the cornea.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 16, Altheimer discloses wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: a spherical refractive power of the lens (paragraph 0014), a cylindrical refractive power of the lens, a cylinder axis of the lens, an aspherical value of the lens, a customized profile of the lens to compensate a higher order aberration of the eye (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 17, Altheimer discloses wherein the means for determining are adapted to optimize a quantity representative of focus quality of rays impinging on the retina (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Altheimer discloses further comprising means for obtaining at least one predetermined property of the lens (position of the lens; type of lens (spectacle lens) and the means for determining are adapted to optimize focusing on the retina by ray tracing (paragraphs 0027, 0065, and 0157) at least in part based on the at least one predetermined property (paragraphs 0009 and 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Altheimer discloses wherein the at least one predetermined property of the lens comprises at least one of: a position of the lens (paragraph 0023; relative position of the lens), a refractive index of the lens (paragraph 0023), a thickness of the lens, a type of the lens (spectacle lens; paragraph 0009), a diameter of the lens, a profile of the lens.
Regarding claim 7, Altheimer discloses further comprising means for obtaining at least one parameter of an entrance pupil (P) of the eye; and wherein the means for determining are adapted to optimize focusing on the retina by ray tracing (paragraphs 0027, 0065, and 0157) based on the at least one parameter of the pupil (P) of the eye (paragraph 0139).
Regarding claim 8, Wuellner discloses further comprising means for obtaining topographic information of a stromal interface of the cornea, and/or an anterior chamber depth of the eye (page 32, lines 17-20); and wherein the means for determining are adapted to optimize focusing on the retina by ray tracing (paragraphs 0027, 0065, and 0157) based on the topographic information of the stromal interface of the cornea, and/or the anterior chamber depth of the eye (page 32, lines 17-20).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Altheimer disclose wherein the lens is an intra-ocular lens to be implanted into the eye (paragraph 0002 discloses the use of a multifocal lens; a multifocal lens is a type intraocular lens).
Regarding claim 10, Wuellner discloses further comprising means for determining an optimized corneal anterior surface and/or a corneal ablation volume for correcting a residual aberration of the eye comprising the lens having the at least one parameter (page 35, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 18, Wuellner discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (paragraphs 0012 and 0013) according to claim 15, further comprising program instructions for selecting an intraocular lens to be implanted into the eye at least in part based on the at least one determined parameter of the lens (paragraph 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim(s) 6, wherein the claimed invention comprises, in claim 6, wherein the topographic information of the anterior surface and the topographic information of the posterior surface of the cornea each comprises a plurality of data points spanning at least a surface area of 100 µm² on the anterior surface as well as the posterior surface, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872