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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 7/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/22/26.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faria Ribeiro et al Pub. 2022/0287825A1.
Faria Ribeiro et al discloses an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens, wherein: an optical power of the intraocular lens is characterized by a base optical power for distance vision (see paragraphs 66, 75 disclosing a constant IOL base power of 20 diopters), consistent with a monofocal lens; and an additive add-power structure for near vision, including a central add-power ring around an optical axis of the IOL (see paragraph 78 Zone 2 or 3); and an axial power hole at the optical axis of the IOL (see paragraph 78 disclosing Zone 1 disposed centrally on the lens and see Table 2 disclosing a S power of zero).
Regarding claim 2, as disclosed in paragraph 76, the IOL can be a monofocal lens and the ‘825 reference discloses the radius-dependent optical power with a corrective aberration, since, the ‘825 reference discloses different zones with different powers around the optical axis in order to correct an optical aberration.
Regarding claims 3-5, the power of the ‘825 reference varies depending on the radius of the IOL and as shown in Table 2, the power in Zone 1 is zero and the power in zone 3 is +3D.
Regarding claims 7-8, Table 2 discloses a Power on zero, therefore is less than 1 diopter.
Regarding claim 9, Table 2 discloses a Radius end of Zone 1 of 0.5mm.
Regarding claim 10, as disclosed in Figs. 2A and 3A shows in IOL Radius 0-.5mm and 1.1-2.5mm having the lens stay focused over a wider range of distances.
Regarding claim 11, negative logMAR > 0.2 implying that the regular logMAR < -0.2, therefore, Figure 2C of the ‘825 reference shows a logMAR around -0.1 making the negative logMAR of the EMF IOL is > than 0.2 (logMAR < -0.2).
Regarding claim 14, as disclosed in Table 2, Zone 3 is a +3D.
Regarding claim 15, the ‘825 reference is light adjustable, however, regarding how the add-power structure is premolded or formed by a light adjustment procedure, a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q. 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3 (CCPA 1976).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faria Ribeiro et al Pub. 2022/0287825A1 in view of Kosoburd et al US Patent 5,760,871.
Faria Ribiero et al discloses the cosine-transformation equation rather than a super-Gaussian equation.
Kosoburd et al discloses an IOL having an add-power structure induced by a super Gaussian optical path difference raised to a power greater than 2 in its exponential. See col. 15, lines 1-30 disclosing a super-Gaussin equation having an exponential of n = 4.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the smooth radially varying optical path of the Faria Ribeiro et al reference with the well-known super-Gaussian equation having a power of 4 in its exponential, as an alternative smooth mathematical representation of the radially varying optical phase as shown in the Kosoburd et al reference in order to provide a smooth optimizable optical profile while maintaining the desired multifocal/extended-focus optical effect.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faria Ribeiro et al Pub. 2022/0287825A1 in view of Celestino et al US Patent Pub. 2022/0287824A1.
Faria Ribeiro et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a base optical power corresponding to a monofocal IOL and an additional radially varying optical-power structure for extending depth of focus. However, Faria Ribiero et al does not disclose that the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the resulting EMF IOL at zero defocus is within 30% of the MTF of a corresponding monofocal IOL having the same base optical power alone.
Celestino et al teaches measurement of the through-focus MTF of an EDOF IOL and a standard monofocal IOL under the same optical-bench conditions. In particular, Fig. 13 compares curve 7A, representing the standard monofocal IOL, with curve 7B, representing the EDOF IOL, at 50lp/mm and a 3 mm aperture. Celestino expressly states that the MTF peak of the standard monofocal lens is substantially symmetric with respect to the power at best focus, and further expressly states that this focus is assigned to far distances.
With respect to the claimed “zero defocus” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “best-focus condition” assigned to far distance in Celestino to correspond to the zero-defocus reference condition. Therefore, the Examiner believes the rejection is proper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN J STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/ALVIN J STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 9/1/26
