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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A: FIG 1A-1D, claims 1, 3, 6- 9, 11- 13 in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the inner ring” should read “the outer ring”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of eyelets". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 also depends from withdrawn claim 2. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, the claim has been treated as depending from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the three springs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Degtiar (20180117329).
With regards to claim 1, Degtiar discloses a retina clip (20) comprising: an outer ring (see annotated FIG 1A below) having a plurality of retention members (40); and an inner platform (see annotated FIG 1A below) configured to hold a payload (90) against a retina of an eye (FIG 1F); where the inner platform is suspended from the outer ring via a plurality of springs (38, FIG 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 9, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein lengths of the springs in the plurality of springs point towards the inner platform (FGI 1A).
With regards to claim 11, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein the payload is a microelectrode array ([0074]).
With regards to claim 13, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein the outer ring comprises a plurality of eyelets (at the end of 28), and the retention members of the plurality of retention members (40) are tacks that fit through the plurality of eyelets (FIG 2I; [0112]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degtiar (20180117329) in view of So (20230127407).
With regards to claim 3, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of eyelets contains two eyelets (end of 28) spaced equally apart on an outer edge of the outer ring (FIG 1A), but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of eyelets contains three eyelets spaced 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring.
So discloses an ocular implant support device (120) with fixation arms (126). So teaches three fixation arms ([0055]) arranged 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring ([0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degtiar so that the plurality of eyelets contains three eyelets spaced 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring, as taught by So, as this configuration has more connection points more positioning and securement and engages more axes. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
With regards to claim 6, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of springs contains three springs.
So discloses an ocular implant support device (120) with fixation arms (126) that have spring-like qualities ([0056]). So teaches three fixation arms ([0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degtiar so that the plurality of springs contains three springs, as taught by So, as this configuration has more connection points more positioning and securement and engages more axes. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
With regards to claim 7, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, wherein the plurality of eyelets contains two eyelets (end of 28) spaced equally apart on an outer edge of the outer ring (FIG 1A), but fails to disclose wherein the outer ring comprises three eyelets spaced 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring, and wherein each spring of the three springs is attached equally spaced between two of the three eyelets.
So discloses an ocular implant support device (120) with fixation arms (126) that have spring-like qualities ([0056]). So teaches three fixation arms ([0055]) arranged 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring ([0057]) and wherein each spring of the three springs is attached equally spaced between two of the three eyelets (if the three arms with eyelets and springs are equally spaced, each spring will be attached to one arm with eyelets and equally spaced between the other two arms with eyelets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degtiar so that the plurality of eyelets contains three eyelets spaced 120 degrees apart on an outer edge of the outer ring, and wherein each spring of the three springs is attached equally spaced between two of the three eyelets, as taught by So, as this configuration has more connection points more positioning and securement and engages more axes. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degtiar (20180117329) in view of Chmeissani (WO2020089222A1).
With regards to claim 8, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the outer ring, the inner platform, and the plurality of springs are made of nitinol.
Chmeissani discloses a retinal implant (100) configured to hold a payload against a retina of an eye (FIG 4G). Chmeissani teaches that the implant can be made of nitinol (pg 9 line 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degtiar so that the outer ring, the inner platform, and the plurality of springs are made of nitinol, as taught by Chmeissani, as it is an implant-grade material and can help the implant hold a desired shape (pg 10 line 24).
With regards to claim 12, Degtiar discloses the retina clip of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the payload is a microLED array.
Chmeissani discloses a retinal implant (100) configured to hold a payload against a retina of an eye (FIG 4G). Chmeissani teaches that the payload is a microLED array (page 4 line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Degtiar’s retina clip to include that the payload is a microLED array, as taught by Chmeissani, in order to include an artificial vision system (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE FLORENCIA NERENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-9599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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.
/R.F.N./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights