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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment with a proximal and distal tube in combination with a corrugated section (see claim 13) must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0177138 to Brown et al in view of US 2010/0249691 to Van Der Mooren et al.
In the specification and figures, Brown teaches the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant. With regard to claims 1, 4, Brown teaches an ocular implant comprising a scleral plate 100, an extensible tube 112, wherein the distal end of the extensible tube is placed in the anterior chamber of the eye and has a terminal open end with an anchor to prevent extrusion (see FIG 2, ¶0018, 0025, 0052). Brown is silent as to how the tube is attached to the plate. However, US 2010/0249691 to Van Der Mooren discloses an ocular implant with a scleral plate 40 and a tube 46, wherein the outflow end 50 of the tube is placed in a groove between inner face 44 and outer ridge 54 in order to secure the tube to the plate with a reduced height at the site of attachment 56 (see FIGS 1-4, ¶0056, 0058, 0066). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a groove as disclosed by Van Der Mooren to secure an extensible drainage tube to a scleral plate as disclosed by Brown, in order to provide a reduced height at the attachment site, as taught by Van Der Mooren.
With regard to claims 2 and 5, Brown teaches that a section of the tube is corrugated (see FIGS 8A, 8b).
With regard to claim 3, Brown does not teach the length of the tube. However, However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Brown discloses that the anchor element may comprise a cone or rounded cone, which may resemble a hook shape or a circular flange (see ¶0050).
With regard to claim 8, Brown does not disclose two lumens. However, Van Der Mooren discloses an ocular implant as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the tube comprises two smaller lumens instead of one large lumen in order to transmit the same volume of fluid while reducing the height of the implant (see Van Der Moore FIS 6-8, ¶0109). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use two smaller lumens as disclosed by Van Der Moore in the ocular implant disclosed by Moore, in order to reduce the vertical height of the implant, as taught by Van Der Moore.
With regard to claims 9, 10, 12 (see rejections of claim 1 above), Brown discloses an embodiment wherein the adjustable length tube comprises two tubes 512, 514 in telescopic relation to one another, wherein inner tube 512 locks in relationship to outer tube 514 to prevent leakage (see Brown FIGS 5-6, ¶0055).
With regard to claim 11, Brown does not teach the length of the tube. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
With regard to claim 13, Brown does not disclose an embodiment with telescoping tubes and corrugation. However, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing upon looking at each embodiment of the Brown reference, could reasonably combine the embodiments to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, see rejections of claims 6 and 7, above.
With regard to claim 16, Brown and Van Der Moore reasonably teach the claimed method of providing the claimed device, attaching a plate to a sclera, and feeding a drainage tube into an anterior chamber (see rejection of claim 1 above, Brown ¶0048).
With regard to claim 17, Brown teaches telescopic tubes (see rejection of claim 9), but does not teach their dimensions. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
With regard to claims 18 and 19, Brown does not disclose temporary occlusives to restrict flow. However, Van Der Mooren discloses that it was known in the art at the time of Van Der Moore’s invention, in 2010, to use temporary sutures to restrict flow upon implantation which may later biodegrade (see Van Der Moore ¶0012). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a temporary occlusion as disclosed by Van Der Mooren to a lumen of an ocular outflow device, such as the one suggested by the cited art in order to restrict flow, as taught by Ven Der Moore.
With regard to claim 20, see rejections of claims 6 and 7, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8,771,220 Nissan et al
Glaucoma shunt with groove
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE R DEAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am to 5:30pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 12 February 2026