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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claim 10 has been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 17-18 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 8, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Smith”) in view of Graham et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465 – hereinafter referred to as “Graham”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a contact-based wide-angle visualization system (“WAVS”) (Figure 1, [0032]) for use in an ophthalmic suite having a microscope (Figure 2 microscope 202, [0042]), the contact-based WAVS comprising:
a constant downforce (CDF) assembly (Figure 1 surgical microscope attachment 100, [0042]) having a proximal end (Figure 1 top of microscope attachment 100) and a distal end (bottom of microscope attachment 100), wherein the proximal end of the CDF assembly is configured to connect to an optical head of the microscope via an intervening connecting arm (Figures 1 and 2 mounting member 102, [0034]); and
a contact lens device that is connectable to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 1 indirect contact lens 120, [0040]), and that includes a contact lens (concave portion 137, [0040]) configured to be worn on a cornea of a patient’s eye (Figure 1, [0040] concave portion 137 mates with the convex shape of the cornea) in the ophthalmic suite, wherein the CDF assembly is configured to (i) provide a constant downforce to the contact lens device ([0043] indirect contact lens 120 may be self-retaining due to the weight of the indirect contact lens 120 transmitted to the convex portion 137), and (ii) self-level ([0032] surgical microscope attachment forces indirect contact lens to remain upright and aligned with the optical axis of the eye of the patient (Figure 2) and thus self-levels).
Smith fails to teach maintaining the contact lens device in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor. However, Graham is related to Smith with respect to a contact-based ophthalmic device for viewing the eye (Figure 1) and teaches offsetting a gonioscopy lens assembly by + or – 10 degrees from normal to the surgical field to allow for full viewing of the anterior chamber (Figure 15, [0059]-[0061]. Optimizing position of the contact lens device is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smith teaches adjusting the angle of a contact-based lens as a variable which achieves a recognized result of viewing the full anterior of the eye. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith such that the contact lens device is maintained in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Smith further teaches the contact lens device includes:
a support frame configured to support the contact lens (Figure 1 retaining mechanism 114-3, [0033]); and
a support frame arm connected to the support frame and to the CDF assembly (Figure 1 arm member 114-2, [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Smith further teaches the CDF assembly includes a shaft (Figure 1 extension member 104, [0036]) that is circumscribed by a bearing housing containing instrument bearings (Figure 1 bearings 106, [0036]) therein, and wherein the bearing housing is translatable along a longitudinal axis of the shaft (Figure 1, [0035] extension member 104 translates vertically in direction 108, which is along axis of extension member 104).
Claims 2, 5, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and in further view of Koester (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,717).
Regarding claim 2, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Smith and Graham fail to teach a gimbal connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly and to contact lens device, wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device.
However, Koester teaches a system for stabilizing an eye contacting element (Abstract) with a gimbal (Figure 5b gimbal bearing comprising elements 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26, Column 6 lines 12-35) connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 5c gimbal bearing connected to support post 20) and to contact lens device (Figure 5a contact element structure 10), wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device (Column 6 lines 12-35 gimbal permits rotation about two orthogonal axes and maintain contact with the eye while support post 20 remains stationary). Koester further teaches using a gimbal to allow for the contact element structure to track small movements of the eye (Column 6 lines 12-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding the gimbal taught by Koester in order to allow imaging stability and the ability to track small eye movements (Koester Column 6 lines 12-35).
Regarding claim 5, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Smith and Graham fail to teach one or more constant force springs connected to or surrounding the shaft. However, Koester teaches using a constant force spring connected to or surrounding the shaft (Column 8 lines 30-40 spring loaded linear bearing). Koester further teaches using a constant force spring to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Column 8 lines 34-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding a constant force spring as taught by Koester in order to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Koester Column 8 lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches a contact-based wide-angle visualization system (“WAVS”) (Figure 1, [0032]) for use in an ophthalmic suite having a microscope, the contact-based WAVS comprising:
a constant downforce (CDF) assembly (Figure 1 surgical microscope attachment 100, [0042]) having a proximal end (Figure 1 top of microscope attachment 100) and a distal end (bottom of microscope attachment 100), wherein the proximal end of the CDF assembly is configured to connect to an optical head of the microscope via an intervening connecting arm (Figures 1 and 2 mounting member 102, [0034]); and
a contact lens device that is connectable to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 1 indirect contact lens 120, [0040]), and that includes a contact lens (concave portion 137, [0040]) configured to be worn on a cornea of a patient’s eye (Figure 1, [0040] concave portion 137 mates with the convex shape of the cornea) in the ophthalmic suite, a support frame configured to support the contact lens (Figure 1 retaining mechanism 114-3, [0033]), and a support frame arm connected to the support frame and to the CDF assembly (Figure 1 arm member 114-2, [0033]); and
wherein the CDF assembly is configured to provide a constant downforce to the contact lens device ([0043] indirect contact lens 120 may be self-retaining due to the weight of the indirect contact lens 120 transmitted to the convex portion 137), and to self-level ([0032] surgical microscope attachment forces indirect contact lens to remain upright and aligned with the optical axis of the eye of the patient (Figure 2) and thus self-levels).
Smith fails to teach maintaining the contact lens device in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor. However, Graham is related to Smith with respect to a contact-based ophthalmic device for viewing the eye (Figure 1) and teaches offsetting a gonioscopy lens assembly by + or – 10 degrees from normal to the surgical field to allow for full viewing of the anterior chamber (Figure 15, [0059]-[0061]. Optimizing position of the contact lens device is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smith teaches adjusting the angle of a contact-based lens as a variable which achieves a recognized result of viewing the full anterior of the eye. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith such that the contact lens device is maintained in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Smith and Graham fail to teach a gimbal connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly and to contact lens device wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device. However, Koester teaches a system for stabilizing an eye contacting element (Abstract) with a gimbal (Figure 5b gimbal bearing comprising elements 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26, Column 6 lines 12-35) connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 5c gimbal bearing connected to support post 20) and to contact lens device (Figure 5a contact element structure 10), wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device (Column 6 lines 12-35 gimbal permits rotation about two orthogonal axes and maintain contact with the eye while support post 20 remains stationary). Koester further teaches using a gimbal to allow for the contact element structure to track small movements of the eye (Column 6 lines 12-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding the gimbal taught by Koester in order to allow imaging stability and the ability to track small eye movements (Koester Column 6 lines 12-35).
Regarding claim 12, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Smith further teaches the CDF assembly includes a shaft (Figure 1 extension member 104, [0036]) that is circumscribed by a bearing housing containing instrument bearings (Figure 1 bearings 106, [0036]) therein, and wherein the bearing housing is translatable along a longitudinal axis of the shaft (Figure 1, [0035] extension member 104 translates vertically in direction 108, which is along axis of extension member 104).
Regarding claim 13, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Smith and Graham fail to teach one or more constant force springs connected to or surrounding the shaft. However, Koester teaches using a constant force spring connected to or surrounding the shaft (Column 8 lines 30-40 spring loaded linear bearing). Koester further teaches using a constant force spring to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Column 8 lines 34-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith by adding a constant force spring as taught by Koester in order to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Koester Column 8 lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches a system (Figure 2) comprising:
a connecting arm (Figures 1 and 2 mounting member 102, [0034]) configured to connect to an optical head of a microscope (Figure 2 microscope 202, [0042]); and a contact-based wide-angle visualization system (“WAVS”) (Figure 1, [0032]) for use in an ophthalmic suite having a microscope (Figure 2 microscope 202, [0042]), the contact-based WAVS comprising:
a constant downforce (CDF) assembly (Figure 1 surgical microscope attachment 100, [0042]) having a proximal end (Figure 1 top of microscope attachment 100) and a distal end (bottom of microscope attachment 100), wherein the proximal end of the CDF assembly is configured to connect to the connecting arm (Figures 1 and 2 mounting member 102, [0034]), wherein the CDF assembly includes a shaft (Figure 1 extension member 104, [0036]) that is circumscribed by a bearing housing containing instrument bearings (Figure 1 bearings 106, [0036]) therein, and wherein the bearing housing is translatable along a longitudinal axis of the shaft (Figure 1, [0035] extension member 104 translates vertically in direction 108, which is along axis of extension member 104); and
a contact lens device that is connectable to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 1 indirect contact lens 120, [0040]), and that includes a contact lens (concave portion 137, [0040]) configured to be worn on a cornea of a patient’s eye (Figure 1, [0040] concave portion 137 mates with the convex shape of the cornea) in the ophthalmic suite, wherein the CDF assembly is configured to provide a constant downforce to the contact lens device ([0043] indirect contact lens 120 may be self-retaining due to the weight of the indirect contact lens 120 transmitted to the convex portion 137), and to self-level ([0032] surgical microscope attachment forces indirect contact lens to remain upright and aligned with the optical axis of the eye of the patient (Figure 2) and thus self-levels).
Smith fails to teach maintaining the contact lens device in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor. However, Graham is related to Smith with respect to a contact-based ophthalmic device for viewing the eye (Figure 1) and teaches offsetting a gonioscopy lens assembly by + or – 10 degrees from normal to the surgical field to allow for full viewing of the anterior chamber (Figure 15, [0059]-[0061]. Optimizing position of the contact lens device is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smith teaches adjusting the angle of a contact-based lens as a variable which achieves a recognized result of viewing the full anterior of the eye. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith such that the contact lens device is maintained in a range of 5 to 10 degrees of true parallel orientation relative to a floor of the ophthalmic suite while avoiding a true parallel orientation relative to the floor since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Smith and Graham fail to teach one or more constant force springs connected to or surrounding the shaft. However, Koester teaches using a constant force spring connected to or surrounding the shaft (Column 8 lines 30-40 spring loaded linear bearing). Koester further teaches using a constant force spring to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Column 8 lines 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding a constant force spring as taught by Koester in order to maintain sufficient but not excessive force on the cornea to ensure accurate tracking without damaging the cornea (Koester Column 8 lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 18, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Smith and Graham fail to teach a gimbal connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly and to contact lens device, wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device.
However, Koester teaches a system for stabilizing an eye contacting element (Abstract) with a gimbal (Figure 5b gimbal bearing comprising elements 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26, Column 6 lines 12-35) connected to the distal end of the CDF assembly (Figure 5c gimbal bearing connected to support post 20) and to contact lens device (Figure 5a contact element structure 10), wherein the gimbal maintains the orientation by limiting a pitch and/or a roll of the contact lens device (Column 6 lines 12-35 gimbal permits rotation about two orthogonal axes and maintain contact with the eye while support post 20 remains stationary). Koester further teaches using a gimbal to allow for the contact element structure to track small movements of the eye (Column 6 lines 12-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact based WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding the gimbal taught by Koester in order to allow imaging stability and the ability to track small eye movements (Koester Column 6 lines 12-35).
Regarding claim 19, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Smith further teaches the contact lens device includes: a support frame configured to support the contact lens (Figure 1 retaining mechanism 114-3, [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 19. Smith further teaches the contact lens device includes: a support frame arm that is connected to the support frame and to the CDF assembly (Figure 1 arm member 114-2, [0033]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Metelski (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0224664).
Regarding claim 6, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Smith and Graham fail to teach the CDF assembly includes a miniature gas spring. However, Metelski teaches a surgical stand arrangement (Figure 2) with a gas spring (Figure 2 gas spring 7, [0026]). Metelski further teaches using gas springs a energy storage element to provide lever support and low static friction (Abstract and [0003]). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by adding a gas spring as taught by Metelski in order to add an energy storage element to provide lever support and low static friction (Abstract and [0003]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fukaya (U.S. Patent No. 5,420,716).
Regarding claim 7, Smith and Graham teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Smith further teaches a low-friction air cylinder (Figure 1 mounting member 102, [0035] mounting member 102 is a hollow cylinder), the low-friction air cylinder having a low-friction piston disposed therewithin (extension member 104, [0036] extension member 104 travels freely to other positions with very low friction). Smith and Graham fail to teach the CDF assembly includes a four-bar mechanism operatively connected to the piston wherein a longitudinal axis of the piston is laterally offset from the four-bar mechanism.
However, Fukaya teaches a four-bar mechanism with a laterally offset microscope (Figure 2, Column 3 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith and Graham by using the four-bar mechanism taught by Fukaya and offsetting the piston since a four-bar mechanism is a well-known mechanical arrangement used to provide a desired motion.
Regarding claim 8, Smith, Graham, and Fukaya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Smith further teaches an end of the piston is operatively connected to the contact lens device (Figure 1 extension member 104 is connected to indirect contact lens 120, [0040]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) and Fukaya (U.S. Patent No. 5,420,716) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Airpot (Airpot Corp, Piston & Cylinder Sets Offer Designers Low Cost Components with Unmatched Capabilities, 2018).
Regarding claim 9, Smith, Graham, and Fukaya teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Smith, Graham, and Fukaya fail to teach the low-friction air cylinder is constructed from borosilicate glass. However, Airpot teaches a low-friction air cylinder constructed from borosilicate glass (First paragraph lines 1-2). Airpot further teaches using a borosilicate glass cylinder to provide low friction, prevent jerking, uncontrolled starts, and provide uniform smoothness (First paragraph lines 3-5). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS device taught by Smith Graham, and Fukaya by constructing the air cylinder out of borosilicate glass as taught by Airpot in order to provide low friction, prevent jerking, uncontrolled starts, and provide uniform smoothness (First paragraph lines 3-5).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) and Koester (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,717) as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Metelski (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0224664).
Regarding claim 14, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Smith, Graham, and Koester fail to teach the CDF assembly includes a miniature gas spring. However, Metelski teaches a surgical stand arrangement (Figure 2) with a gas spring (Figure 2 gas spring 7, [0026]). Metelski further teaches using gas springs an energy storage element to provide lever support and low static friction (Abstract and [0003]). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith, Graham, and Koester by adding a gas spring as taught by Metelski in order to add an energy storage element to provide lever support and low static friction (Abstract and [0003]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353990) in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0313465) and Koester (U.S. Patent No. 4,964,717) as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Fukaya (U.S. Patent No. 5,420,716).
Regarding claim 15, Smith, Graham, and Koester teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Smith further teaches a low-friction air cylinder (Figure 1 mounting member 102, [0035] mounting member 102 is a hollow cylinder, [0036] extension member 104 travels freely to other positions with very low friction). Smith, Graham, and Koester fail to teach the CDF assembly includes a four-bar mechanism operatively connected to the low-friction air cylinder.
However, Fukaya teaches a four-bar mechanism (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith, Graham, and Koester by using the four-bar mechanism taught by Fukaya and connecting the air cylinder since a four-bar mechanism is a well-known mechanical arrangement used to provide a desired motion.
Regarding claim 16, Smith, Graham, Koester, and Fukaya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Smith further teaches the low-friction air cylinder has a piston (extension member 104, [0036] extension member 104 travels freely to other positions with very low friction) disposed therewithin and an end of the piston is operatively connected to the contact lens device (Figure 1 extension member 104 is connected to indirect contact lens 120, [0040]).
Smith, Graham, and Koester fail to teach a longitudinal axis of the piston is laterally offset from the four-bar mechanism. However, Fukaya teaches a four-bar mechanism with a laterally offset microscope (Figure 2, Column 3 lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the WAVS system taught by Smith, Graham, and Koester by using the four-bar mechanism taught by Fukaya and offsetting the piston since a four-bar mechanism is a well-known mechanical arrangement used to provide a desired motion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0265460) teaches microscope for wide-angle viewing of the eye with a similar mechanical arrangement to the instant invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights