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 .
Restriction/Elections
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-16), in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. The election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 3. 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2025.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. US 20210275291 A, herein referred to as Das, in view of Ben et al. WO 03015669 A1, herein referred to as Ben.
Regarding claim 1, Das discloses an optical implant (Fig 1, 10), comprising: a posterior optic surface (bottom side obscured in Fig 9), an anterior optic surface (top view shown in Fig 9), an optic edge (Col 7, lines 31-49) between the posterior optic surface and the anterior optic surface (Fig 9); a locking tab (Fig 9, 48) coupled to the posterior optic surface (Fig 9).
Das does not explicitly disclose an optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface.
However, Ben, in the same field of art, teaches an optic implant (pg 4 line 23- pg 5 lines 5), namely intraocular lens system, with a base (Fig 4a, 44), an anterior optic surface and a posterior optic surface (Fig 4a; top and bottom of lens 46, respectively); an optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface (Fig 4a, labeled T).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique of (supporting an intraocular lens during delivery) Ben to Das would be obvious and have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ben to the teaching of Das would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate an optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface. Further, applying wherein an optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface to the optical implant of Das, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient lens support while interfacing with a delivery system (Ben pg 10, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 2, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the optic stabilizer comprises an angular protrusion from the anterior optic surface (Ben Fig 4a, top portion of T support).
Regarding claim 3, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optic stabilizer comprises an adjunct support and an optic seat.
However, in another embodiment Ben also teaches wherein the optic stabilizer comprises an adjunct support and an optic seat (Ben Fig 4a, 51/44; seat formed between interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Das/Ben to incorporate wherein the optic stabilizer comprises an adjunct support and an optic seat, as taught and suggested by Ben in order to augment axial force during delivery of the lens (Ben pg 11, lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 4, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and additionally teaches wherein the optic stabilizer comprises a stub protruding from the anterior optic surface (Ben Fig 4a, top portion of T support).
Regarding claim 5, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and additionally teaches wherein a base configured to be coupled to the locking tab (Das Fig 1, 14 [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 5, and additionally teaches the base comprises: a ring (Das Fig 2, 24) having an anterior surface (top), a posterior surface (bottom), an inner surface (28), and an outer surface (30); and a haptic coupled to the outer surface (Fig 1, 20; [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 6, and additionally teaches wherein: the haptic forms a junction (Das Fig 2, 38) with the ring; and the locking tab is configured to be positioned in the junction ([Das 0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and additionally teaches further comprising an adjunct optic (Das Fig10, 66) coupled to the optic stabilizer (Ben Fig 4a).
Regarding claim 9, Das discloses an optical implant (Fig 1, 10), comprising: a base (14); and a primary optic (12), the primary optic comprising: a posterior optic surface (bottom side obscured in Fig 9), an anterior optic surface (top view shown in Fig 9), an optic edge (Col 7, lines 31-49) between the posterior optic surface and the anterior optic surface (Fig 9), a sidewall (16), a transition region between the posterior optic surface and the sidewall (Fig 9), locking tabs (18) coupled to the posterior optic surface (Fig 9), wherein the locking tabs and the sidewall are configured to overlap the base (Figs 1 and 9).
Das does not explicitly disclose a first optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface, and a second optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface.
However, Ben, in the same field of art, teaches an optic implant (pg 4 line 23- pg 5 lines 5), namely intraocular lens system, with a base (Fig 4a, 44), an anterior optic surface and a posterior optic surface (Fig 4a; top and bottom of lens 46, respectively) ;a first optic stabilizer (Fig 4a, labeled T) coupled to the anterior optic surface (Fig 4a), and a second optic stabilizer (T, plurality shown) coupled to the anterior optic surface (Fig 4a, 31);
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique of (supporting an intraocular lens during delivery) Ben to Das would be obvious and have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ben to the teaching of Das would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate a first optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface, and a second optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface. Further, applying wherein an optic stabilizer coupled to the anterior optic surface to the optical implant of Das, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient lens support while interfacing with a delivery system (Ben pg 10, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 10, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and does not explicitly disclose wherein the second optic stabilizer is disposed opposite the first optic stabilizer.
However, in another embodiment, Ben also teaches wherein the second optic stabilizer is disposed opposite the first optic stabilizer (Ben Fig 4a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Das/Ben to incorporate disclose wherein the second optic stabilizer is disposed opposite the first optic stabilizer, as taught and suggested by Ben in order to limit the axial space the support take up of the associated lens (Ben pg 10, lines 6-8)
Regarding claim 11, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second optic stabilizer is disposed opposite the first optic stabilizer.
However, in another embodiment Ben also wherein: the first optic stabilizer comprises a first adjunct support (Ben top of T) and a first optic seat (Ben Fig 4a); the second optic stabilizer comprises a second adjunct support (Ben shows plurality) and a second optic seat (Ben Fig 4a, opposite side); and the second adjunct support is disposed opposite the first adjunct support (Ben Fig 4a, 51/44; seat formed between interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Das/Ben to incorporate wherein the second optic stabilizer is disposed opposite the first optic stabilizer, as taught and suggested by Ben in order to limit the axial space the support take up of the associated lens (Ben pg 10, lines 6-8)
Regarding claim 12, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and additionally teaches the base comprises: a ring (Das Fig 2, 24) having an anterior surface (top), a posterior surface (bottom), an inner surface (28), and an outer surface (30); and a pair of haptics coupled to the outer surface (Das Fig 1, 20, plurality shown; [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 12, and additionally teaches wherein: the haptics forms a junction (Das Fig 2, 38) with the ring; and the locking tab is configured to be positioned in the junction ([Das 0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Das teaches an optical implant further comprising an adjunct optic (Das Fig 10, 66) The combination of Das with the first and second optic stabilizers of Ben would result in the adjunct optic of Das being coupled to first and second optic stabilizers (Ben Fig 4a T support, supports are fully capable of supporting the adjunct lens of Das).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Das/Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 13, and additionally teaches wherein: the base defines a first axis (Das Fig 5a, O); the primary optic defines a second axis (Das Fig 5a, B); and the locking tabs are aligned with the second axis (Das Fig 5a-b, shows locking as axes are aligned ); wherein positioning the locking tabs in the junction aligns the second axis with the first axis ([0038-0041]).
Regarding claim 16, Das as modified by Ben discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 15, and additionally teaches wherein: the base comprises openings (Das Fig 5a, 50) that define the first axis; and the primary optic further comprises orientation markers that define the second axis (Das [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Simonov et al. US 20120310341 A1 discloses an intraocular optic system.
Nagamoto et al. US 20030114927 A1 discloses an intraocular optic assembly.
Olson et al. US 20180311032 A1 discloses an intraocular optic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian Flores whose telephone number is (571)272-1450. 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, Melanie 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.
/A.F./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/KATRINA M STRANSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights