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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/16/2026. Claims 35 and 50 are amended and claims 35-55 are currently pending, claims 35-50 and 54-55 are examined herein.
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 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.
Claims 35-38, 40, 50, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over PG Pub. 2017/0075139 to Sessner et al. (hereinafter Sessner) in view of US Pat. No. 8,317,321 to Haddock (hereinafter Haddock) and US Pat. No. 4641934 to Freeman (hereinafter Freeman).
Regarding claims 35 and 50, Sessner discloses spectacle lens for an observer, the spectacle lens comprising: a body (carrier 19 with diffraction structures 24, 26 of Fig. 2 shown in detail in Fig. 3-5, transparent carrier 62 with diffraction structures 66-70 and 72-76 of Fig. 16 and lens 112a with diffraction structure “generating the optical effect” on Fig. 19) having at least one diffraction structure (phase objects 20, 22 having diffraction structures 24, 26, Fig. 1-3, modulation of Figs. 4-6 and diffraction structure ) extending along a body surface, wherein a refractive index n(x, y) of the at least one diffraction structure is spatially modulated in dependence on a location on the body surface (Fig. 3-5, 8; [0077]), wherein the spatial modulation of the refractive index n(x,y) of the at least one diffraction structure is continuous over a contiguous area B of the at least one diffraction structure (Figs. 3-5, see explanation below) and the diffraction structure is configured to convert a spherical light wave which originates from a point on an object surface selected from a free-form surface, a plane, a curved surface, or a bent surface, the object surface being arranged on a side of the spectacle lens facing away from the observer (Fig. 18; [0108]-[0110]), into a light wave which projects an image of the point on the object surface onto an image point lying in an image surface that is optically conjugate to the object surface (object surface 106 to image surface of the eye 104, Fig. 18; [0108]-[0110]), wherein the at least one diffraction structure is a hologram (“a multiplicity of diffraction structures in the form of a spatial modulation of the complex refractive index are introduced in a subsequent step into the transparent layer 66 by exposure using a holographic method”; [0099]-[0104]).
Only recently, through image manipulation via brightness and contrast settings, was it understood that Sessner Fig. 4 reference number “44” called “lines” had lead lines connected to vertical plot lines parallel to the y-axis. With this understanding of Fig. 4, the description of Fig. 5 becomes clearer via “the basis of curves 42 against the modulation of the absolute value of the complex refractive |n(λ; x,y,z)| index along the lines 44 from FIG. 4”. The clarified Fig. 4 is shown below in comparison with bolder lead lines from reference number “44” and the corresponding chart “lines” (vertical dashed). It is now understood that Fig. 5 represents a fixed amplitude index modulation with varied spatial frequency at discrete cross-sections of data shown in Fig. 4. The modulations are continuous sinusoidal modulations of substantially fixed amplitude and therefore continuously differentiable.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
900
1008
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sessner discloses the diameter D of the area B (“an extent of approximately 25 square millimeters (mm.sup.2)”; [0032]), defined as the supremum of a metric distance d(x,y) between two arbitrary points x, y arranged in the area of the body surface, with D :=sup{d(x,y):x,y ∈ B}. This corresponds to an average diameter of the diffractive structure is approximately 5.62mm. This cannot be said to evidence D ≥ 10mm, as claimed, alone.
Further, Sessner discloses “FIGS. 19 to 23 show various spectacle lenses 112a, 112b, 112c, 112d and 112e which have a multifocal or varifocal function and which contain a multiplicity of diffraction structures, as described above, for generating the optical effect” and “the spectacle lens 112a has a first visual zone 114 and a further visual zone 116… the optical effect of the visual zone 114 differs from the optical effect of the visual zone 116” and finally “[t]he spectacle lens 112a has the optical effect corresponding to the refractive power B114 for viewing directions which pass through the visual zone 114… the visual zone 116, B116<B114”. Fig. 19 graphically depicts the optical effect across a visual field of view from -50⁰ to +60⁰. It cannot be said that all optical effects are generated by a diffractive structure though Sessner discloses that an optical effect of Fig. 19 is generated by a diffractive structure. For this reason, given a known vertex between the eye and the lens, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the dimensional extent in millimeters of the zones 114 and 116. Taking the smaller zone 114 and a typical vertex distance between 10-16mm, the lateral extent of a diffraction grating spanning that field of view would be approximately 12mm x 17.3mm (for 10mm vertex) or approximately 19mm x 27mm (for 16mm vertex). The proportionality of the drawings is not relied upon in these estimations as the drawing depicts an optical effect to the edge of the 50 and 60 degree extents (see geometry below).
PNG
media_image3.png
900
1600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lastly, Sessner states “[i]t should be noted that the invention also extends to a spectacle lens in which combinations of features from different embodiments for diffraction structures, described above, can be found” ([0117]). Should the continuous index modulation of Fig. 4-6 be utilized in providing the optical effect of zone 114 in Fig. 19, the claimed D ≥ 10mm would be met.
Examiner cannot reconcile the contradictory disclosure that a single diffraction structure has an extent “of approximately 25 square millimeters” ([0032]) and therefore it cannot be clearly asserted that Sessner teaches a diffraction structure occupies all of the extent of an index modulation of D≥10mm.
Regarding claim 50, Sessner discloses determining a design for the lens recited.
Haddock teaches “cropped diffractive optical power region 111 may have a largest diffractive structure having a diameter of approximately 40 mm” (Fig. 26B; col. 25, ln. 56-col. 26, ln. 28), wherein the spatial modulation of the refractive index is continuously differentiable (“cropped diffractive optical power region 111 also has continuous closed curves forming the continuous diffractive structures 110”; col. 7, ll. 54-56).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a diffractive structure with the claimed diameter as taught by Haddock with the system as disclosed by Sessner. The motivation would have been to resolve vision and cosmetic compromises in prescriptive lenses without introducing unnecessary, undesirable aberration (col. 1, ln. 35-col. 2, ln. 30 & col. 7, ln. 13-col. 8, ln. 15). In col. 10, ll. 34-65, Haddock discloses the manner in which vision compromises are addressed by the size and design of the diffractive structure providing blended zones and edges.
Due to the above-noted contradiction in Sessner, it is unclear if Sessner discloses a diffraction structure embodied as a hologram with D ≥ 20mm and Haddock discloses a diffraction structure in which D ≥ 20mm though without holographic production means.
Freeman discloses diffraction structure embodied as a hologram across a near-reading or progressive reading zone of a spectacle lens (“the lens may be a spectacle lens which may have the diffractive power over part only of the visually used area, e.g. over a part corresponding to the near or reading portion of a bifocal or progressive spectacle lens”; col. 1, ln. 67-col. 2, ln. 15 & col. 3, ln. 14-col. 4, ln. 29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hologram dimensioned across a near vision region, disclosed by Haddock to be as wide as 40mm, as taught by Freeman with the system as disclosed by Sessner. The motivation would have been to provide optical correction corresponding to the field of a view of an eye through a worn spectacle lens (see description of Figs. 22-24).
Regarding claim 36, Sessner discloses the hologram is a hologram of at least a first reference wave W11 and a second reference wave W12 ([0101]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 37, Sessner discloses the hologram of the diffraction structure is a hologram of two pairs of reference waves (W11, W12) ([0101]-[0103]) or a number of pairs of reference waves Pi(Wi1, Wi2), i = 1, 2, 3.
Regarding claim 38, Sessner discloses wherein the hologram is an optical grating which has a local grating period vector
PNG
media_image4.png
31
193
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and a local grating vector
PNG
media_image5.png
46
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with a grating vector amount
PNG
media_image6.png
49
224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein, for the grating vector amount IKG38| of the optical grating, the following applies:
PNG
media_image7.png
32
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
--(Fig. 4-5 depict a grating period between approximately 1.8micron and 3.9micron and a continuous transition therebetween, thus between 2.0micron and 2.8micron).
Regarding claim 40, Sessner discloses for the grating vector amount, the following applies:
PNG
media_image8.png
26
131
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where F---38(x, y) is a scalar function dependent on the location of the at least one diffraction structure surface (Fig. 4-5 show a varying grating period that would necessarily provide an x-y varying scalar function, as claimed).
Regarding claims 54-55, Sessner discloses the at least one diffraction structure is configured to diffract light in a range from 400 to 700 nm (“the spectacle lenses 16, 18 have a preferably individualized optical effect, which has been adapted for the left eye and the right eye of an observer. The spectacle lenses 16, 18 have a body which is produced from plastic which transmits the visible light”).
Visible light is necessarily in the 400-700nm wavelength range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests a spectacle lens having a diffraction structure, as claimed, with a continuously differentiable refractive index modulation spanning a diameter D ≥ 10mm with a globally constant grating constant magnitude.
Claims 41-49 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests a spectacle lens comprising the claimed diffraction structure spanning a diameter D ≥ 10mm in combination with limitations on refractive dispersion and local grating constants.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 16 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Tomono et al. fails to suggest a hologram having an opening width of 20 mm or more … Thus, Tomono cannot reasonably be considered to suggest features corresponding to the above quoted recitations of independent claims 35 and 50”. While the above rejections do not rely upon Tomono, the crux of this argument appears germane to the obviousness rejection in view of Freeman. No single reference in the rejection above nor the previous rejection in view of Tomono wholly discloses the claimed hologram dimensioned such that D>20mm. Nonetheless, Haddock and Freeman above evidence the obviousness of providing a holographic diffractive structure spanning substantial portions of a spectacle lens through which the wearer’s field of view spans. Freeman discloses that the optical characteristics of a spectacle lens may be achieved via hologram across near-vision or progressive regions of a spectacle lens and Haddock discloses that a diffractive structure may span 20mm or 40mm across the wearer’s field of view. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights