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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 6, 16, and 19 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smathers et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0229459).
Regarding claim 1, Smathers disclose a system for forming a refractive lens (e.g. ¶ 6), the system comprising:
a pulsed laser (e.g. 111) configured to produce a pulsed laser output (e.g. ¶ 137); and
an optical device configured to form a focused laser output from the pulsed laser output and direct the focused laser output at a polymeric lens material containing a UV absorber compound, wherein the focused laser output is configured to alter a molecular structure of the UV absorber compound (e.g. ¶ 123) to form a new or modified compound that imparts a different refractive property in the refractive lens (e.g. ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 2, Smathers discloses the optical device comprises a focusing device and a scanner (e.g. ¶ 137).
Regarding claim 3, Smathers discloses the scanner is configured to distribute the pulsed laser output in a plane to form a distributed laser output, and the focusing device is configured to focus the distributed laser output to produce a focused laser output (e.g. ¶ 137).
Regarding claim 4, Smathers discloses a microscope objective (e.g. ¶ 137).
Regarding claim 5, Smathers discloses the microscope objective includes a numerical aperture (e.g. ¶ 137).
Regarding claim 6, Smathers discloses the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more polar bonds (e.g. ¶ 122).
Regarding claim 16, Smathers discloses the pulsed laser is a femtosecond laser (e.g. ¶ 135).
Regarding claim 19, Smathers discloses the formation of the new or modified compound is based on a power level or a power intensity of the pulsed laser (e.g. ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 20, Smathers discloses the pulsed laser output is further configured to alter a molecular structure of the polymeric lens material along with the molecular structure of the UV absorber compound (e.g. ¶ 126, 140).
Regarding claim 21, Smathers discloses the different refractive property is a direction of light relative to a target location (e.g. ¶ 140).
Regarding claim 22, Smathers discloses the target location is a retina and the direction of light is either towards the retina or away from the retina (e.g. ¶ 140).
Regarding claim 23¸ Smathers discloses a system for altering an existing refractive lens (e.g. ¶ 6), the system comprising: a pulsed laser configured to produce a pulsed laser output (e.g. ¶ 137); and an optical device configured to form a focused laser output from the pulsed laser output and direct the focused laser output at a polymeric lens material containing a UV absorber compound, wherein the focused laser output is configured to alter a molecular structure of the UV absorber compound (e.g. ¶ 20) to form a new or modified compound that transforms a portion of the refractive lens such that light hitting that portion of the refractive lens is directed to or away from away from the retina (e.g. ¶ 140).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smathers in view of Zhou (US PGPUB 2024/0034872).
Regarding claim 7, Smathers discloses the invention as previously described but fails to explicitly recite wherein the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more non-polar bonds. Zhou teaches it is known that the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more non-polar bonds (e.g. ¶ 112). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Smathers to include the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more non-polar bonds as taught by Zhou, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of forming elastic material usd as foldable intraocular lens
Claim(s) 8 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smathers et al. in view of Silvestrini (US PGPUB 2017/0342096).
Regarding claims 8 – 10, Smathers discloses the claimed invention except for the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more single bonds, double bonds, or triple bonds. Silvestrini teaches it is known that the molecular structure altered by the focused laser output includes one or more single bonds, double bonds, or triple bonds (e.g. ¶ 70). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Smathers with the single, double or triple bonds as taught by Silvestrini, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing lens oil suitable for use in intraocular devices.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smathers et al. in view of Knox et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0128294).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 17, and 18, Smathers discloses the claimed invention except for a positive or negative refractive index change. Knox teaches it is known that molecular structure results in a positive refractive index change (e.g. ¶ 32) or a negative refractive index change (e.g. ¶ 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Smathers with the positive or negative refractive index change as taught by Know, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing an IOL material whose refractive power can be modified by a change in the refractive index.
Claim(s) 13 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smathers et al. in view of Tanabe et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0029812).
Regarding claims 13 – 15, Smathers discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly reciting the new UV absorber compounds. Tanabe teaches it known to use at least two UV absorber compounds that are converted into new UV absorber compounds (e.g. ¶ 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Smathers with the converted UV absorber compounds as taught by Tanabe, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a good lens color.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights