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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application (foreign priority application KR10-2023-0173411 filed December 4, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 5, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over House in view of Yates, et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Yates” US 2019/0213917).
Regarding claim 1, Yates discloses a model eye (see FIG. 2, eye model 100) having a posterior cornea reflectivity similar to that of a human eye (see para. [0017]-[0018]:
[0017] In a preferable embodiment, the lens model 6 is a convex-convex lens with the posterior surface 9 faster (having higher refractive power) than the anterior surface that is made to provide an anatomically accurate 4.sup.th Purkinje reflection. In one embodiment anatomically accurate is specified by the 4.sup.th Purkinje reflection having a characteristic position, size, shape, polarization, sharpness, scattering, and brightness as seen on a human eye. These characteristic parameters are determined for said lens model by choice of materials, thickness of said materials, anterior and posterior radius of curvature of said materials, diameter of said materials, and axial location of said materials in said model eye relative to other model eye anatomic structures. In one embodiment, the lens model 6 may be made of glass or plastic. In a preferred embodiment, slightly translucent plastic may be used for lens model 6 to better mimic the scattering haze of the human lens. In one embodiment, the posterior surface 9 of the lens model 6 has a nominal radius of 5.5 mm to provide a 4.sup.th Purkinje reflection (i.e. reflection from the posterior lens surface) of similar position and size as found on an adult human eye. In one embodiment, a thin birefringent layer 8 can be placed on the anterior surface of said lens model to provide birefringence effects as found in the human lens. In one embodiment, the birefringent layer 8 can be made of a thin plastic sheet affixed on the anterior surface to provide at least a 15-degree retardation of polarized light.
[0018] In one embodiment, the corneal and lens model is comprised as a single integrated element. This element is defined as one having the optical and refractive characteristics of the combination of the separate corneal model and the lens model. The optical and refractive characteristics of said single integrated element can be validated as compared to the separate corneal and lens model using an optical design software such as Zemax.), comprising: a body having a space formed therein (see FIG. 2, eye model 100; see para. [0020]: The front part 2 and back part 3 form an internal spherical chamber 10 for the retinal shell 7 and an external enclosure for the eye model 100. The inner spherical chamber 10 is to be filled with water or clear mineral oil);
solid glass mounted in front of the body to seal the body, as a substitute for a cornea of a human eye (see FIG. 2, see para. [0017]: In one embodiment, the lens model 6 may be made of glass or plastic); and
a liquid substance being oil filled in the space of the body (see FIG. 2, eye model 100; see para. [0020]: The front part 2 and back part 3 form an internal spherical chamber 10 for the retinal shell 7 and an external enclosure for the eye model 100. The inner spherical chamber 10 is to be filled with water or clear mineral oil).
Yates fails to explicitly disclose vegetable oil. However, the Applicant’s use of vegetable oil is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the use of vegetable oil solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any liquid using the device of Yates or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Yates to obtain the device as specified in claim 1, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yates.
Regarding claim 2, Yates discloses wherein the liquid substance is oil (see FIG. 2, eye model 100; see para. [0020]: The front part 2 and back part 3 form an internal spherical chamber 10 for the retinal shell 7 and an external enclosure for the eye model 100. The inner spherical chamber 10 is to be filled with water or clear mineral oil).
Yates fails to explicitly disclose sunflower oil. However, the Applicant’s use of sunflower oil is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the use of sunflower oil solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any liquid using the device of Yates or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Yates to obtain the device as specified in claim 2, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yates.
Regarding claim 3, Yates discloses wherein the glass is a glass (see FIG. 2, see para. [0017]: In one embodiment, the lens model 6 may be made of glass or plastic).
Yates fails to explicitly disclose H-FK95 glass. However, the Applicant’s use of H-FK95 glass is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the use of H-FK95 glass solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any glass or plastic using the device of Yates or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Yates to obtain the device as specified in claim 3, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yates.
Regarding claim 4, Yates fails to explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the liquid substance is between 1.465 and 1.485, and a refractive index of the glass is between 1.43 and 1.45. However, the Applicant’s use of a refractive index of the liquid substance is between 1.465 and 1.485, and a refractive index of the glass is between 1.43 and 1.45 is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the use of a refractive index of the liquid substance is between 1.465 and 1.485, and a refractive index of the glass is between 1.43 and 1.45 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any refractive index of the liquid substance and the glass using the device of Yates or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Yates to obtain the device as specified in claim 4, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights