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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30, 31, 32. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claims 7, 11 and 13 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 7 recites the limitation "the central optical zone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first discrete region" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second discrete region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the optical" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Based on the provided specification, the Examiner is interpreting the optical zone of claim 1, the central optical zone of claim 7 and the optical of claim 13 to be the same feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2021/0382326 A1) in view of Christie (US 2011/0040376 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches an intraocular lens (fig. 11) configured to provide an extended depth-of-field (abstract), said intraocular lens comprising:
an optical zone (118, central optical zone, fig. 11) comprising at least one anterior optical surface (front of lens, fig. 11) and at least one posterior optical surface (back of lens, fig. 11);
a first periphery region peripherally positioned relative to the optical zone (124, device, fig. 11), the first periphery region comprising a virtual aperture (120, optical structure, fig. 11), the virtual aperture comprising an anterior virtual aperture surface (front of structure, fig. 11) and a posterior virtual aperture surface (back of structure, fig. 11), wherein the virtual aperture comprises a first subsurface region having a first refractive index (¶ [0072]), and wherein the virtual aperture further comprises a plurality of modified, subsurface loci (146, lenslets, fig. 11), wherein the modified, subsurface loci have a second refractive index, which is different from the first refractive index and caused by nonlinear absorption of photons resulting from exposure to focused laser light (¶ [0072-0075]); and
wherein a first plurality of light rays incident on the anterior optical surface pass through the optical zone to form an image on a retina when the intraocular lens is implanted in an eye (light rays passing through optical zone 118, fig. 1, ¶ [0034]); and
wherein a second plurality of light rays incident on the anterior virtual aperture surface are dispersed widely downstream from the intraocular lens towards and across the retina (light rays passing through optical structure 120, fig. 1, ¶ [0035]), such that the image comprises the extended depth-of-field and further wherein said virtual aperture reduces monochromatic and chromatic aberrations in the image. The phrase “such that the image comprises the extended depth-of-field and further wherein said virtual aperture reduces monochromatic and chromatic aberrations in the image” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the optical structure is considered to be capable of reducing monochromatic and chromatic aberrations in the image.
Kubota fails to teach haptics for positioning the intraocular lens within an eye. However, Christie teaches an intraocular lens that includes a second periphery region peripherally positioned relative to the first periphery region, the second periphery region comprising a haptic for positioning the intraocular lens within an eye (104, haptic, fig. 1A, ¶ [0151]), wherein the haptic comprises an outermost region of the intraocular lens (fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the intraocular lens of Kubota to include haptics as taught by Christie in order to prevent the intraocular lens from moving or rotating within the eye (¶ [0151], Christie).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota further teaches the first periphery region is connected to the central optical zone by a first transition region (see annotated fig. 11, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kubota further teaches the optical zone includes at least two discrete regions including a first discrete region (118, central zone, fig. 11) and a second discrete region (120, optical structure, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota fails to teach a plurality of holes of predetermined size. However, Christie further teaches the first periphery region includes a plurality of holes of predetermined size (2120, holes, fig. 18A), wherein the plurality of holes is collectively configured to permit the passage of light therethrough to create a diffractive effect. The phrase “the plurality of holes is collectively configured to permit the passage of light therethrough to create a diffractive effect” is a functional recitation (see MPEP 2114.II). The prior art is not required to explicitly disclose the recited function, but merely have the capability of performing [or being manipulated to] the recited function in order to meet the claim requirements. In this case, the holes 2120 are considered to be capable of permitting the passage of light therethrough to create a diffractive effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the first periphery region of Kubota to include a plurality of holes as taught by Christie in order to allow more light to pass through the mask (¶ [0222], Christie).
Regarding claim 14, Kubota further teaches at least one subsurface loci is configured to create a diffractive effect on light passing therethrough (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Kubota further teaches the plurality of modified, subsurface loci is arranged in a two dimensional array of loci (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Kubota further teaches the second refractive index is different from the first refractive index by 0.06 (¶ [0105]).
Claim(s) 2-6, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Christie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blum (US 2014/0327875 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota and Christie fail to teach a hexagonal micro-structure. However, Blum teaches an ophthalmic lens that includes the anterior or posterior surface of the virtual aperture comprises a hexagonal micro-structure having an outer boundary defined by a hexagon (¶ [0060], fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual aperture of Kubota to include a hexagonal micro-structure as taught by Blum in order to have a larger optical fill faction within the host lens (¶ [0060], Blum).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota and Christie fail to teach a hexagonal micro-structure having a micro-lens. However, Blum further teaches the anterior or posterior surface of the virtual aperture comprises a hexagonal micro-structure having a micro-lens (¶ [0060], fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual aperture of Kubota to include a hexagonal micro-structure having a micro-lens as taught by Blum in order to have a larger optical fill faction within the host lens (¶ [0060], Blum).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota and Christie fail to teach at least one micro-lens comprises a convex sphere. However, Blum further teaches at least one micro-lens comprises a convex sphere (¶ [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens shape of Kubota to include at least one micro-lens comprises a convex sphere as taught by Blum since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota and Christie fail to teach at least one micro-lens comprises a concave sphere. However, Blum further teaches at least one micro-lens comprises a concave sphere (¶ [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens shape of Kubota to include at least one micro-lens comprises a concave sphere as taught by Blum since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota and Christie fail to teach at least one micro-lens comprises a conicoid. However, Blum further teaches at least one micro-lens comprises a conicoid (¶ [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens shape of Kubota to include at least one micro-lens comprises a conicoid as taught by Blum since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, which courts have recognized supports a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, Kubota further teaches the second periphery region is connected to the first periphery region by a second transition region (see annotated fig. 11, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kubota further teaches the first discrete region is a central region (118, central zone, fig. 11) and the second discrete region is a peripheral region positioned peripherally around the central region (120, optical structure, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota further teaches the first discrete region comprises a first distance power and the second discrete region comprises a second distance power (¶ [0081, 0122]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Christie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogaert (US 2010/0057202 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kubota and Christie fails to teach the optical is 1.5 to 3.3 mm in size. However, Bogaert teaches an intraocular lens that includes the optical is 1.5 to 3.3 mm in size (¶ [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical size of Kubota and Christie to be 1.5 to 3.3 mm as taught by Bogaert in order to balance distant visual acuity and enhanced DOF (¶ [0073], Bogaert).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Christie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knox (US 2012/0310223 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kubota and Christie fail to teach a three dimensional array of loci. However, Knox teaches a method for modifying the refractive index of ocular tissues that includes the plurality of modified, subsurface loci is arranged in a three dimensional array of loci (¶ [00990-0091] and ¶ [0171], fig. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the subsurface loci arrangement of Kubota and Christie to include a three dimensional array of loci as taught by Knox in order to offer certain design degrees of freedom (¶ [0171], Knox).
Regarding claim 17, Kubota and Christie fail to teach a rectangular shaped array of equidistant loci. However, Knox further teaches the subsurface loci form a rectangular shaped array of equidistant loci (¶ [00990-0091] and ¶ [0171], fig. 25).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the subsurface loci arrangement of Kubota and Christie to include a rectangular shaped array of equidistant loci as taught by Knox in order to offer certain design degrees of freedom (¶ [0171], Knox).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M DUDDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights