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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 21 May 2026 have been entered. Claims 48-59 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 48 and 54 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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 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 48-55 and 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwiegerling (US 2011/0292335 A1), “Schwiegerling” in view of Mackool (US 2017/0252151 A1), “Mackool”, and further in view of Zhao (US 2016/0216535 A1), “Zhao”.
Regarding claim 48, Schwiegerling teaches an ophthalmic lens (summary, [0009]) comprising: an optical surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) disposed about an optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0); and a diffractive profile (Fig. 4, surface profile 130) imposed on the optical surface (Fig. 4, surface profile 130 is placed on optical surface 102), and including a plurality of echelettes (Fig. 4, surface profile 130 comprises echelettes), but fails to teach one of the plurality of echelettes is identical to another echelette, and is spaced apart from the another echelette by at least one echelette that is different than each other echelette of the plurality of echelettes, and wherein the one of the plurality of echelettes is not part of a set of adjacent echelettes that repeats on the optical surface.
Mackool teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein one of the plurality of echelettes is identical to another echelette (Fig. 3, zone 152 and zone 156 are repeated [0028]), and is spaced apart from the another echelette by at least one echelette that is different than each other echelette of the plurality of echelettes (Fig. 3, zones 152 and 156 are separated by zone 154 which comprises varying echelette heights [0027-0028]). Mackool discloses that repeating the heights of the echelettes of one or more zones further from the center of the lens allows for a larger amount of light energy to be dedicated to near vision [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Schwiegerling with the echelettes taught by Mackool in order to strengthen the near vision capabilities of the lens. However, Schwiegerling in view of Mackool fails to teach and wherein the one of the plurality of echelettes is not part of a set of adjacent echelettes that repeats on the optical surface.
Zhao teaches a multifocal diffractive lens wherein the one of the plurality of echelettes is not part of a set of adjacent echelettes that repeats on the optical surface (Fig. 5, diffractive structure 10 comprises repeating echelettes 23a randomly spaced apart by echelettes 23c and does not form a repeating set of echelettes [0093-0094]). Zhao discloses the combination of the plurality of echelettes allows for diffraction of at least 90% to the viewing orders [0094]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of echelettes and another echelette taught by Mackool with the echelettes not in sets and randomly repeating as taught by Zhao in order to provide better viewing capabilities.
Regarding claim 49, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the one of the plurality of echelettes is repeated on the optical surface at least twice (Fig. 4, step height 138 is repeated).
Regarding claim 50, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the optical surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) is a first surface of an optic (Fig. 4, optical surface 102 is the first surface before echelettes), and the optic includes a second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) disposed about the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0), the first surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) and the second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) each extending radially outward from the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0) to an outer periphery of the optic, the first surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) facing opposite the second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) and joining to the second surface at the outer periphery of the optic (Fig. 4, optical surface 102 and lower surface 134 join periphery of extensions 101).
Regarding claim 51, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the plurality of echelettes (Fig. 4, surface profile 130 comprises echelettes) includes at least one echelette that does not repeat on the first surface between the optical axis and the outer periphery of the optic (Fig. 4, echelettes of surface profile 130 have altering heights and therefore do no repeat).
Regarding claim 52, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the plurality of echelettes includes at least two echelettes that each do not repeat on the first surface between the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0) and the outer periphery of the optic (Fig. 4, step heights 13, 138 have repeating shapes along optical surface 102).
Regarding claim 53, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the plurality of echelettes includes a set of at least two adjacent echelettes (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138), the set of at least two adjacent echelettes being repeated on the optical surface (Fig. 4, step heights 13, 138 have repeating shaped along optical surface 102).
Regarding claim 54, Schwiegerling teaches an ophthalmic lens (summary, [0009]) comprising: an optical surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) disposed about an optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0); and a diffractive profile (Fig. 4, surface profile 130) imposed on the optical surface (Fig. 4, surface profile 130 is placed on an optical surface 102), and including a plurality of echelettes (Fig. 4, surface profile 130 comprises echelettes), at least two adjacent echelettes of the plurality of echelettes forming a set of echelettes (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138), and the set: does not form part of a greater set of adjacent echelettes that repeats on the optical surface (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138 are the only echelette styles on optical surface), is repeated on the optical surface to form one or more multiples of the set on the optical surface (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138 are repeated), is separated from each of the one or more multiples of the set by at least one echelette (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138 are repeated multiple times), is spaced apart from another repeated set by at least one echelette that does not repeat on the optical surface, and the at least two adjacent echelettes of the set are different, but fails to teach one of the plurality of echelettes is repeated identically.
Mackool teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the set is repeated identically on the optical surface to form one of more multiples of the set on the optical surface (Fig. 3, zone 152 and zone 156 are repeated [0028]), is separated from each of the one or more multiples of the set by at least one echelette (Fig. 3, zones 152 and 156 are separated by zone 154), is spaced apart from another repeated set by at least one echelette that does not repeat on the optical surface (Fig. 3, zones 152 and 156 are separated by zone 154 which comprises varying echelette heights [0027-0028]), and the at least two adjacent echelettes of the set are different (Fig. 3, heights of echelettes 153, 157 vary within zones 152, 156 [0028]), wherein a number of echelettes in the at least one echelette separating the one or more multiples of the set is less than a number of echelettes in the set of echelettes (Fig. 6, zone 3 176 is a repeat zone for zone 1 172 which comprises five echelettes 173 and zones 1 and 3 are separated by zone 2 comprising four echelettes 175). Mackool discloses that repeating the heights of the echelettes of one or more zones further from the center of the lens allows for a larger amount of light energy to be dedicated to near vision [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Schwiegerling with the echelettes taught by Mackool in order to strengthen the near vision capabilities of the lens.
Regarding claim 55, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the set is repeated on the optical surface to form at least two multiples of the set on the optical surface (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138 are repeated multiple times).
Regarding claim 58, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the optical surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) is a first surface of an optic (Fig. 4, optical surface 102 is the first surface before echelettes), and the optic includes a second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) disposed about the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0), the first surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) and the second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) each extending radially outward from the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0) to an outer periphery of the optic, the first surface (Fig. 4, optical surface 102) facing opposite the second surface (Fig. 4, lower surface 134) and joining to the second surface at the outer periphery of the optic (Fig. 4, optical surface 102 and lower surface 134 joint at periphery of extensions 101).
Regarding claim 59, Schwiegerling teaches wherein the plurality of echelettes (Fig. 4, step heights 136, 138) includes at least one echelette that does not repeat (Fig. 4, echelettes of surface profile 130 have altering heights and therefore do not repeat) on the first surface between the optical axis (Fig. 4, dashed line labeled 0) and the outer periphery of the optic.
Claims 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwiegerling (US 2011/0292335 A1), “Schwiegerling” in view of Mackool (US 2017/0252151 A1), “Mackool”, and further in view of Cohen (US Pat. No. 5045905), “Cohen”.
Regarding claim 56, Schwiegerling in view of Mackool fails to teach wherein the set is separated from each of the one or more multiples of the set by at least two echelettes. Cohen teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the set is separated from each of the one or more multiples of the set by at least two echelettes (Fig. 7, repeating echelette sets are separated by at least one set of echelettes which is comprised of at least three individual echelettes). Cohen teaches at least three adjacent echelettes of the plurality of echelettes form the set of echelettes (Fig. 7, lens comprises three plates with three echelettes, [col. 4, lines 20-26]).
Cohen discloses that the echelettes of this phase plate have varying depths and settings so that the line through the centers of all the echelettes parallels the base curve (col. 6, par. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a set of three adjacent echelettes in order to form a parallel curve of echelettes that provide stronger structural support to elastic movements of the eye.
Regarding claim 57, Schwiegerling in view of Mackool fails to teach wherein at least three adjacent echelettes of the plurality of echelettes form the set of echelettes. Cohen teaches an ophthalmic lens with at least three adjacent echelettes of the plurality of echelettes form the set of echelettes (Fig. 7, lens comprises three plates with three echelettes, [col. 4, lines 20-26]).
Cohen discloses that the echelettes of this phase plate have varying depths and settings so that the line through the centers of all the echelettes parallels the base curve (col. 6, par. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a set of three adjacent echelettes in order to form a parallel curve of echelettes that provide stronger structural support to elastic movements of the eye.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA G. B. RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00AM-6:00PM CST.
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, JERRAH C EDWARDS can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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.
/G.G.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/JERRAH EDWARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
