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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "5" and "17" have both been used to designate haptics. While these element numbers are in different figures, both figures seem to be the same embodiment of the invention and therefore should label the same parts with the same numbers. It appears that figure 1 may also be sharing similar elements to the device of figures 2-3 also as they all seem to be the same embodiment of the invention based on the figures and the instant disclosure.
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 “at least two optical elements” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It appears the elements may be in the figures but unlabeled or labeled using different language.
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. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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.
In regard to claim 1, the use of “for example to be placed in the sulcus of the eye” renders the scope of the claim unclear as it is unclear if the limitation following “for example” is positively recited. It is recommended to remove the “for example” statement from the claim. The instant disclosure does not provide further clarification to if the “for example” statement is intended to be positively recited.
In regard to claim 2, the claim recites “preferably as seen along the optical axis.” The term “preferably” creates uncertainty to if “as seen along the optical axis” is being positively recited. “Preferably” should be removed from the claim. The instant disclosure does not provide further clarification.
In regard to claim 6, the claim recites “in particular tilted towards the multifocal optical surface of the optical lens”. The use of in particular makes it unclear if this limitation is being positively recited. “In particular” should be removed. The instant disclosure does not provide further clarification.
Since claims 3-5 depend from claim 1, claims 3-5 are also rejected under 112b.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, the claim recites “at least one optical lens” after reciting “an intraocular lens”. It appears the intraocular lens is the same as the optical lens since only one lens is present in the figures (figure 1 is labeled as a top view while figure 2 is a side view). Please use consistent terminology and antecedent basis throughout for clarity. A suggested correction is to amend a) to read “the intraocular lens is an optical lens”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rombach (2010/0106245A1).
In regard to claim 1, Rombach teaches an intraocular lens (figure 1-2) for correcting of refraction, comprising:
a) at least one optical lens 5 with an optical axis (fig 1-2);
and b) haptics 2, connected to the optical lens 5 (see fig 1), for positioning the lens in front of the capsular bag of an eye, for example arranged to be placed in the sulcus of the eye (“for example arranged to be placed in the sulcus of the eye” is interpreted as best understood to not be positively recited); (abstract: haptics are mechanically coupled to a structure of the eye like the sulcus)
c) wherein haptics 2 comprise at a least a pair of ring shaped flexible arms [0017: flexible haptic; see fig 2 ring shaped arms] arranged on opposite sides of the optical lens 5 as seen perpendicular to the optical axis (fig 1: haptics positioned in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the eye);
d) wherein the optical lens 5 comprises an optical power element (+ signs) for correcting the refractive power of an eye (see plus signs in figure 2; [0046]); and
e) wherein the optical lens 5 further comprises a multifocal optical surface for extending the depth of field of an eye. [0022: haptics in combination with multifocal lenses; therefore the surface of the lens is a multifocal optical surface]
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rombach (2010/0106245A1) in view of Simonov (WO2014/058316A1).
In regard to claim 2, Rombach meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but remains silent to where the multifocal optical surface is arranged in comparison to the optical power element.
Simonov teaches the optical power element and the multifocal optical surface are arranged on opposite sides of the optical lens, preferably as seen along the optical axis. (see figure 6; power element at 42 and multifocal surface at 37) The preferably statement is interpreted as best understood to not be required. (power element is optical element; p 1 of description; fig 6-7 description)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the multifocal optical surface opposite the power element in the lens of Rombach as taught by Simonov because this allows proper focusing and correction of refractive error of the eye (fig 6-7 description).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rombach (2010/0106245A1) in view of Van Der Mooren (2014/0257480A1).
In regard to claim 3, Rombach meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the multifocal optical surface is a cubic optical surface.
Van der Mooren teaches wherein the multifocal optical surface is a cubic optical surface. [0048: cubic profile combined with multifocal lens]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the multifocal optical surface of Romach cubic as taught by Van der Mooren because the cubic profile extends the depth of focus [0050] and improves halo and glare performance [0050].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rombach (2010/0106245A1) in view of Simonov (WO2011/102719A1).
In regard to claim 4, Rombach meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the multifocal optical surface is a chiral optical surface.
Simonov teaches the multifocal optical surface is a chiral optical surface. (fig 6; 21 is chiral; pg 3, lines 10-14)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the multifocal surface of Romach chiral as taught by Simonov because the lens produces an extended continuous range of focus (pg 3, line 14)
In regard to claim 5, Rombach meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 but does not teach the optical lens comprises at least two optical elements.
Simonov teaches the optical lens comprises at least two optical elements, wherein each optical element is fitted with a multifocal optical surface to adjust the optical properties of the intraocular lens by adjustment of the mutual position of the optical elements. (fig 9; pg 3, lines 30-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the two optical lens elements of Romach in place of the optical element of Romach because the two optical elements can adjust the refractive power. (pg 3, lines 30-35)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rombach (2010/0106245A1) in view of Siepser (DE3629193A1).
In regard to claim 6, Rombach meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further teaches the optical lens 5 defines an optical plane (fig 1-2).
However, Rombach does not teach the haptics are positioned tilted compared to the optical plane or optical lens.
Siepser teaches the haptics (48, 50) are positioned tilted compared to the optical plane or the optical lens (see for example, figure 6, 9C), in particular tilted towards the multifocal optical surface of the optical lens. The in particular statement is treated as not positively recited. [0042, 0080]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to tilt the haptics of Romach as taught by Siepser because the tilt assists in centering the lens to avoid optical aberration [0042 of translation].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIE BAHENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3.
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.
/CHRISTIE BAHENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights