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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, line 18, “move” should be --moving--. On page 10, lines 8-9, “input signal input” lacks proper syntax; on line 12, “user’s” is misspelled; on the last line of page 10, the period should be replaced by a comma. On page 13, line 8, “an” should read --a--; on the third to last line, “1” is not understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahum, WO 2013/076723 A1, which discloses a corneal endothelial tissue transplantation system comprising a tissue carrier to which cultured corneal endothelial tissue is attached and which is inserted into an anterior chamber of an eyeball (Figures 1, 6A-6B, 8A-8B; abstract; page 3, lines 16-21; page 4, lines 15-21; page 9, lines 8-20; page 10, lines 8-19; page 22, lines 14-21); a magnetic field generation module comprising at least one generator of magnetic field for moving the tissue carrier (page 17, lines 11-12; page 34, lines 16-19 and 32; page 35, lines 1-8; page 37, lines 21-27; page 41, lines 1-3). A plate for supporting one or more magnetic field generators would have been obvious in order to maintain the arrangement in a contact lens form (Figures 7A-7D; page 5, lines 28-30; page 17, lines 4-5; page 18, lines 18-20; page 34, lines 18-19 and 24-25; page 35, lines 9-13; page 38, line 12 et seq.) and/or to maintain an array of electromagnets for accurate and consistent control of the varying magnetic fields (page 17, lines 11-12; page 34, lines 18-19 and 32; page 35, lines 1-8; page 37, lines 21-27; page 41, lines 1-3). A user input module would have been obvious in order to adaptably control these magnetic fields based on implant location, feedback, and sensor signals (page 36, lines 9-31; page 37, line 5) so as to properly position the implant, maintain its location, and effect massage (page 3, line 23; page 37, lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 2, paramagnetic wire(s) disposed about at least a portion of the circumference of the tissue carrier would have been an obvious alternative in order to avoid potential problems with magnetized particles (page 4, line 4; page 11, line 17; page 13, lines 15-17; page 19, lines 16-17; page 23, lines 3-4; page 27, lines 25-26; page 28, lines 3 and 16; page 33, lines 22-24; page 41, lines 28-30). Regarding claims 3-4, the tissue carrier may be of a plate shape so as to conform to the lamellar corneal graft 100 (Figures 1, 6A-6B; page 7, line 13; page 15, line 6); folding and unfolding of the tissue carrier may be effected (Figure 8B; page 3, line 15; page 4, line 25; page 9, lines 21-23; page 32, line 28; page 33, lines 7-24). Regarding claim 5, the support plate being transparent so as to define a surgical observation port would have been obvious in order to enhance control of graft implantation and position [page 14, line 3; page 16, line 26 (imaging methods to evaluate graft position), page 31, lines 5-6 and 9]. Regarding claim 6, magnetic field generators may be circumferentially arranged (page 33, line 17; page 34, lines 18-19 and 32), so a central observation port would have been obvious to more accurately center the implant. Regarding claim 7, because the magnetic field generators may be circumferentially arranged (above), at least one generator is innately inclined in a direction toward the tissue carrier during at least one stage of its deployment. Regarding claim 8, electromagnetic cores being toroidal or partially toroidal such that a curved portion is bent at an angle generally toward the tissue carrier as it is being inserted into the eye would have been obvious in order to provide an electromagnetic core array that lies generally flat against the cornea (Figures 7A-7D; page 5, lines 28-30; page 17, lines 4-5; page 18, lines 18-20; page 33, line 17; page 34, lines 18-19 and 32; page 38, line 12 et seq.). Regarding claim 9, although Nahum generally teaches away from air bubbles (page 15, lines 15-21; page 16, lines 1-3), an air supply module would nevertheless have been an obvious addition in order to supplement the positioning of the graft against the native cornea (page 19, lines 11-12), particularly since some of the tested embodiments were determined as unable to be “non-contact manipulated” (pages 44-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2018/0250123 A1: abstract; drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H. Willse, whose telephone number is 571-272-4762. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Melanie Tyson can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DAVID H WILLSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
