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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wavelength filter formed on a convex side of the lens base material” (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “a power DD provided by the diffraction structure is 15% or more and less than 50% of a prescription power D” which is unclear what is “a prescription power D”. Is this the same prescription power from claim 1? If it is, then what is 15-50% of zero? Is this some other prescription power, if so, the prescription power of what? Such power D appears entirely arbitrary as a relative variable (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The metes and bounds are unclear since how DD is 15 to 50% of an entirely arbitrary power is unclear, or, assuming the same claim 1 prescription power, what 15-50% of 0 is. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches a diffractive structure, the requirement 0.15 ≤ DD/D ≤ 0.50 is necessarily met for any arbitrarily defined D.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2010/0045929; of record) in view of Bakaraju et al. (US 2020/0073174 - Bakaraju).
As to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a near-sightedness progression suppression ophthalmic lens (Suzuki Fig. 1; Figs. 6-9; Fig. 11) comprising
a prescription power is zero or less (Suzuki Fig. 9; Fig. 11; para. [0020]; Tables 1-2; para. [0112]; Tables 3-4; para. [0122]);
a diffraction structure for which a blaze wavelength (Suzuki para. [0042]) is set to be in the visible range is provided on at least one of an object-side surface side and an eyeball-side surface side (Suzuki Fig. 6; Figs. 7-9, 11 - DOE; para. [0042]);
the ophthalmic lens has a positive longitudinal chromatic aberration provided by the diffraction structure (Suzuki para. [0112] - teaching the focal lengths for blue light (F-line = 486.113nm) and red light (C-line = 656.272nm) are fF = 0.03065; fC = 0.57604. Thus the focal length of blue (fF) being less than the focal length of red (fC) (or conversely the power (1/fF) of blue is greater than the power (1/fC) of red) which is positive longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA));
the ophthalmic lens comprises wavelength filter for attenuating light with a wavelength in a range of 564nm to 830nm (Suzuki para. [0056] - lens can include a polarizing filter which necessarily attenuates light of wavelengths 564nm to 830nm to any arbitrary attenuation amount).
Suzuki doesn’t specify the blazed (design) wavelength being 477nm to 535nm. In the same field of endeavor Bakaraju teaches myopia control lenses having blazed diffraction with a design wavelength greater than 477nm and 535nm (Bakaraju - Abstract; Fig. 1B - 5; Fig. 3B - 26B; Figs. 3I-K; para. [0018], [0037], [0224]; para. [0002] - This disclosure also relates at least in part to one or more of the following: altering, changing and/or reducing the longitudinal chromatic aberration of the wearer's eye for the wavelengths between approximately 510 nm and approximately 610 nm that may serve as a stop signal to the progressing myopic eye). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the blaze (design) wavelength between 477nm and 535nm since, as taught by Bakaraju, such wavelength allows for changing the peak wavelengths of the M cones to control myopia (Bakaraju para. [0037], [0002]).
As to claim 5 (as understood), Suzuki in view of Bakaraju teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the focal length of the diffractive structure is -124.558mm (Suzuki para. [0112]) which corresponds to a DD = 1000/-124.558 = -8.02 D, which is necessarily 15%-50% of any arbitrarily defined D.
As to claim 7, Suzuki in view of Bakaraju teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the ophthalmic lens is an eyeglass lens (Suzuki Fig. 1; para. [0003]).
As to claim 17, Suzuki in view of Bakaraju teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches a lens base material (Suzuki Fig. 5 - L12) and the wavelength filter formed on a convex side of the lens base material (Suzuki Fig. 5 - L11; para. [0056]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Bakaraju as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Larson (US 2002/0126256).
As to claim 18, Suzuki in view of Bakaraju teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, but doesn’t specify the wavelength filter is formed by applying dye to the lens base.
In the same field of endeavor Larson teaches dyeing lens bases (Larson Fig. 9, 14, 15; para. [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the dye since, as taught by Larson, such dyes are well known in the art for the purpose of controlling the transmission of light through the lens (Larson para. [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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:
As to claim 21, as detailed above, Suzuki and Bakaraju teach providing the blazed design wavelength from 510-610nm with examples at 510nm, 535nm which is outside the claimed range of 477nm to 480nm, in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Reardon et al. (US 12,271,057); Bakaraju et al. (US 11,226,497); Suzuki (US 7,845,796); Bandhauer et al. (US 7,455,404); Larson (US 6,604,824) are cited as additional examples of features of the lens as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights