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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Dec. 1/Nov. 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 17-19 remain pending in the application.
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 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.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahler et al. (US 9,023,257), further in view of Iyer et al (US 7,883, 207).
Regarding claim 1, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 41-48, a method for manufacturing an ophthalmic lens (Fig. 6, items 0601, 0602, 0603 (col. 11, lines 48-54)) for eyeglasses intended to be placed in front of an eye of a wearer (Fig. 6, item 0605 (col. 11, line 60)), the ophthalmic lens having a desired optical function comprising a dioptric function adapted to a prescription of the wearer (e.g., col. 3, lines 56-59; it is noticed that, stacking multiple lens to increase the diopter change can be considered to provide a first dioptric function), the method comprising:
providing an optical element (Fig. 44, step 4411 (col. 23, lines 35-37)) made of a first material having a first refractive index (col. 8, lines 18-36; it is noticed that, the PLM (polymeric material inherently has its refractive index (property)), the optical element being intended to be modified to manufacture the ophthalmic lens (Figs. 46-48 (col. 23, lines 41-67 and col. 24, lines 1-13)),
providing data relative to the modification of the optical element enabling to obtain the desired optical function (Figs. 42, 43 (col. 22, lines 63-67 and col. 23, lines 1-19)),
determining at least one zone in the first material based on the data (col. 23, lines 20-28), and
modifying the refractive index of the first material (for example, col. 2, lines 7-22 and col. 4, lines 54-57) to obtain the ophthalmic lens (e.g., Fig. 6, item 0603 or Fig. 12, items 1201, 1202, 1204 and 1205) having the desired optical function comprising at least one of a light absorption function, a polarizing capability, and a reinforcement of contrast capacity in the determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses (col. 14, lines 5-15 (e.g., item 0911 (a femtosecond pulse laser) in Fig. 9); col. 26, lines 55-61) according to the data so as to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function (col. 11, lines 50-57 (it is noticed that, any modifications in hydrophilicity will create some change in the refractive index of the internal region of the PLM (0603) (lines 52-54); It is also noticed that, the refractive index of the PLM represents its optical function); Figs. 46-48 (col. 23, lines 41-67 and col. 24, lines 1-13); For example, it is noticed that, the PLM may incorporate a number of chemicals which may enhance the UV absorption of the PLM and thus enhance the change in the PLM’s hydrophilicity when irradiated with pulsed laser radiation (col. 8, lines 39-42)).
It is noticed that, for example (as illustrated in Fig. 12), the phase wrapping convex (1201) and the phase wrapping concave (1202) (or the patterns) can be considered to provide the second dioptric function (col. 14, lines 32-45).
Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 12, 13, forming a pattern in the determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses according to the set of data to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function (col. 15, lines 3-17 (e.g., refractive index gradient lens (1300) as shown in Fig. 13)).
At least, Sahler discloses that, the original lens curvature is preserved for the phase wrapping lens, the laser shaping technique allows the preservation of the 90 degree angle at each zone for the phase wrapping lens, and the micrometer precision to which the phase wrapping lens may be shaped (col. 14, lines 55-63).
Based on the manufacturing technique of the phase wrapping lens developed by Sahler, a refractive index gradient lens is as generally depicted in Fig. 13 (1300) (col. 15, lines 3-4). In other words, the refractive index gradient lens is showing the individual refractive index of each ring/circle being different from each other.
However, Sahler does not explicitly disclose the ophthalmic lens for eyeglasses.
In the same field of endeavor, multifocal lenses, Iyer discloses that, a multifocal insert of the invention can be fabricated from any type of material and can be inserted into any type of bulk lens material (ABSTRACT). Iyer discloses that, the multifocal insert (or internal layer (col. 2, lines 41-44)) of the present invention can be applied to any type of optical lens or device including contact lens and spectacle lenses (col. 2, lines 27-31). Thus, for making optical lens, switching materials, for example, from making contact lens for making eyeglass lens, is common.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Sahler to have a method for manufacturing an ophthalmic lens as Iyer teaches that it is known to switch materials, for example, from making contact lens for making eyeglass lens. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Sahler discloses that, the data comprise: the data relative to variation of spherical, cylinder and/or prismatic power to be applied to the optical element (col. 4, lines 61-64 (i.e., altering its asphericity (of an optical lens))).
Regarding claims 3, 18, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 12, 13, the pattern comprises superimposed Fresnel layers (col. 14, lines 49-67 (i.e., the Fresnel lens (1204 or 1205))). Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 12, 13, forming a pattern in the determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses according to the set of data to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function (col. 15, lines 3-17 (e.g., refractive index gradient lens (1300) as shown in Fig. 13)).
Regarding claim 5, Sahler discloses that, the optical element is an initial ophthalmic lens having an initial optical function adapted to a previous prescription of the wearer and the refractive index of the first material is modified so as to obtain an ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function adapted to the current prescription of the wearer (i.e., specifically, Sahler discloses that, a lens implanted in a human may be modified and/or corrected in situ without the need for removal of the lens from the patient (col. 14, lines 17-24)); col. 17, lines 63-67 and col. 18, lines 1-3 (i.e., the PLM is in generally unmodified (or previously modified) state and then “dialed-in” to provide optimal vision for the patient); Here, the previously modified lens is based on the previous prescription).
Regarding claim 6, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 14-16 (or Figs. 33-40),
measuring the optical element (Fig. 16, step 1601 (col. 17, lines 37-38));
determining the data relative to the modification of the optical element enabling to obtain the desired optical function based at least on the measurement so as to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the dioptric function (e.g., as shown in step 4021 of Fig. 40, new lens diopter is verified) adapted to the current prescription is determined based at least on a measurement of the optical element (as shown in the steps of Figs. 14, 15, 16 (for example, in step 1601 of Fig. 16)).
Regarding claims 7-8, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the optical element is a semi-finished lens blank or a lens blank comprising a front face and a back face opposed to the front face, the back face being a face intended to be the closest to the wearer's eye when the ophthalmic lens is placed in front of the wearer's eye (as shown in Fig. 6).
Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the determined zone is a tridimensional zone defining a plurality of layers (col. 3, lines 56-59 (i.e., stacking multiple lens)) wherein the refractive index is modified during the modifying step, each layer being substantially parallel to the front face and localized at an average distance from the front face, and during the modification step, the refractive index of the first material in the determined zone is successively modified with focused femtosecond laser pulses (col. 5, lines 18-21) from the most distant layers of the front face to the least distant layers of the front face (as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 8-13,
providing a first ophthalmic lens (for example, layer 1 in 0820 (col. 13, lines 62-67 and col. 14, lines 1-3)) having a first optical function and comprising a first face and a second face opposed to the first face, the second face being the face intended to be the closest to the wearer's eye when the first ophthalmic lens is placed in front of the wearer's eye; and
after the modifying step, adding the modified optical element to the first ophthalmic lens so as to form the ophthalmic lens having a desired optical function adapted to the wearer; wherein the modified optical element is the optical element wherein the refractive index of the first material in the determined zone is modified with focused femtosecond laser pulses according to the data (as shown in Fig. 9-13 (col. 14, 7-28 (i.e., in situ without the need for removal of the lens from the patient); col 15, lines 44-49 (i.e., having multiple optical layers of hydrophilic alteration as generally depicted in Fig. 9 (0900, 0921)))).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 12-13,
applying the pattern to peripheral regions of the lens (as shown in Fig. 12, item 1204 or 1205 (i.e., Fresnel lens (col. 14, lines 49-67))), and
leaving a center region of the lens free of such pattern, the center region of the lens being intended to be in front of a pupil of the wearer once mounted within a headwear and worn by the wearer (as shown in Figs. 6, 12, 13).
Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 13,
applying the pattern in a bottom part of the lens intended to be a near vision zone of the lens (i.e., it is noticed that, based on the configuration of the lens illustrated in Fig. 13, the pattern includes in a bottom part of the lens intended to be a near vision zone of the lens) (related to claim 12). Further, Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 13, a refractive index gradient lens is formed (col. 15, lines 3-4). Based on Fig. 12, the information of the lens curvature is in this concept is stored in a single layer (col. 15, lines 5-6). Thus, Sahler discloses that, applying the pattern such that it forms a multiplicity of optical elements (i.e., the Fresnel lens), each optical element of the multiplicity of optical elements individually having the dioptric function (at least, due to the gradient of the refractive index) (related to claim 13).
Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 12, 13, forming a pattern in the determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses according to the set of data to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function (col. 15, lines 3-17 (e.g., refractive index gradient lens (1300) as shown in Fig. 13)).
Claims 4, 9, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sahler et al. (US 9,023,257) and Iyer et al (US 7,883, 207) as applied to claims 1, 2, 3 above, further in view of Quere et al. (WO 2017/001403).
Regarding claims 4, 17, 19, Sahler discloses that, this change in refractive index generated by the focused laser pulses (0614) causes the two or three-dimensional pattern (0603) to form an optical lens function within the overall lens structure (0601) (col. 11, lines 54-57).
Sahler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 12, 13, forming a pattern in the determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses according to the set of data to obtain the ophthalmic lens having the desired optical function (col. 15, lines 3-17 (e.g., refractive index gradient lens (1300) as shown in Fig. 13)).
However, Sahler does not explicitly disclose the pattern comprises an interferential element. In the same field of endeavor, optical device, Quere discloses that, the pattern comprises an interferential element (page 9, lines 12-21 (an interferential layer (line 20)); it is noticed that, Quere discloses coating can be applied to improve optical or/and mechanical properties of the optical system, such as a hard coat function (lines 18-19)).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Sahler to have the pattern of the optical element as Quere teaches that it is known to have the pattern comprises an interferential element. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Sahler discloses that, the size of the focused femtosecond laser pulses is comprised between 0.5 µm and 1.5 µm (overlapping (col. 27, lines 1-3); It is noticed that, the spot size of Sahler reads over the size of the laser pulses).
Sahler et al. and the claims differ in that Sahler et al. do not teach the exact same range for the size of laser pulses as recited in the instant claim.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Sahler et al. (0.5 to 10 microns) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (0.5 µm and 1.5 µm) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 and 11/20/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the base reference Sahler does not disclose modifying the refractive index of the material to form a pattern in one determined zone with focused femtosecond laser pulses and contact lens (in the teachings of Sahler) and eyeglasses lenses of Applicant having different materials with different functions such as a soft material for contact lenses verse a hard material for eyeglasses, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, at least in claim 1 (as amended), there is no any hard material for eyeglasses being mentioned/claimed.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation eyeglass is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Specifically, Sahler discloses that, the material as applied to the present invention is a polymeric acrylic lens material (PLM) but this material selection is exemplary and should not be treated as a limitation of the present invention (col. 2, lines 18-22).
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that Sahler insists on the action of the focused laser radiation on the hydrophilicity property of the material of the contact lens and such hydrophilicity property is irrelevant for acting on the optical function of the spectacle lens, it is not persuasive.
As illustrated in Fig. 12, the major structural elements created/disclosed in the invention of Sahler are about the phase wrapping convex lens (i.e., item 1201) and the phase wrapping concave lens (i.e., item 1202). These features are corresponding with the claimed features of ‘the pattern forming a plurality of optical elements’ created by focusing femtosecond laser pulses.
Further, it is noticed that, any modifications in hydrophilicity will create some change in the refractive index of the internal region of the PLM (0603) (col. 11, lines 50-57).
Regarding arguments that the incorporation of chemicals for contact lens is not compatible with current eyewear lens material, it is not persuasive. Here, chemicals used are a broad concept.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that Fresnel rings do not have individual dioptric function and Sahler does not disclose the plurality of optical elements individually having a dioptric function, it is not persuasive.
Again, as illustrated in Fig. 12 in the teachings of Sahler, the major structural elements created/disclosed in the invention of Sahler are about the phase wrapping convex lens (i.e., item 1201) and the phase wrapping concave lens (i.e., item 1202). These features are corresponding with the claimed features of ‘the pattern forming a plurality of optical elements’ created by focusing femtosecond laser pulses.
At least, Sahler discloses that, the original lens curvature is preserved for the phase wrapping lens, the laser shaping technique allows the preservation of the 90 degree angle at each zone for the phase wrapping lens, and the micrometer precision to which the phase wrapping lens may be shaped (col. 14, lines 55-63).
Based on the manufacturing technique of the phase wrapping lens developed by Sahler, a refractive index gradient lens is as generally depicted in Fig. 13 (1300) (col. 15, lines 3-4). In other words, the refractive index gradient lens is showing the individual refractive index of each ring/circle being different from each other.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that the (updated) reference Iyer does not disclose polymeric acrylic material (PLM) as the one disclosed in Sahler, it is not persuasive.
As indicated by Sahler, the material applied to make the ophthalmic lens is not limited (col. 2, lines 18-22).
It is noticed that, in the disclosure of Applicant, as non-limiting example, it will be possible to use a diethylene glycol bis(allyl carbonate), such as CR39 ([0073], lines 1-2).
Iyer discloses that, as listed in Table 1, CR39 having an index of refraction of 12.5 is applied to make the multifocal lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741